# Heart training zones



## Cuchilo (8 Aug 2015)

I went for a gentle spin on the TT bike today with the aim of trying Z2 training . No chance of me doing that ! I'd fall off the bloody bike going that slow and my heart rate goes above that just thinking about riding !
Z3-4 seemed an easy pace and I tried my best not to push it as I have a 25 in the morning .
I have my resting and max heart rate so I'm pretty sure I've got the zones right . Anyone else train at Z2 ?


----------



## Citius (8 Aug 2015)

Different plans have different zones. What does zone 2 mean in this context?


----------



## Cuchilo (8 Aug 2015)

It means my heart was beating in zone 2 .


----------



## Citius (8 Aug 2015)

er no, I mean numbers. What percentage of your MHR is zone 2?


----------



## BSRU (8 Aug 2015)

The only way I have managed to cycle for any time just in zone 2 is when using a turbo.
Outside in the real world I would spend half my time walking with the bike as I live in a mildly hilly area.
I ride in zone 2 as I'm not a competitive cyclist I just use zone 2 rides to improve my aerobic engine.


----------



## Citius (8 Aug 2015)

Hello..?? Anyone got any numbers for what zone 2 is..?


----------



## Cuchilo (8 Aug 2015)

Citius said:


> Hello..?? Anyone got any numbers for what zone 2 is..?


4 , 8 and 9 .


----------



## Cuchilo (8 Aug 2015)

23 , 6 and 41 . the bonus tonight is 38 .


----------



## BSRU (8 Aug 2015)

Citius said:


> Hello..?? Anyone got any numbers for what zone 2 is..?


I know Garmin/RideWithGPS/TrainingPeaks use your maximum heart rate and resting heart rate to calculate your heart rate zones.
Basic rule is "Zone 2" is 60 to 70% of max heart rate.


----------



## Cuchilo (8 Aug 2015)

Just looking at my garmin now and it puts my zones as 1 = 92 - 111 BPM
Zone 5 as 166 - 185 BPM .
Riding normally for training that puts me in zone 4-5 all the time  and that's trying not to put in extra effort ( apart from hills )


----------



## screenman (8 Aug 2015)

Slow down then, how did you come to your MHR? When my max was 192 my level 2 was then called 80% 153, my average speed for that over a 3 hour ride would be about 18mph. I spent most of the time between 145 and 155.

When I came back to cycling after a break I trained using the Mathetone method, which for me was 129bpm, within a few months I was averaging 17 to 18 at that low heart rate.


----------



## Cuchilo (8 Aug 2015)

screenman said:


> Slow down then, how did you come to your MHR? When my max was 192 my level 2 was then called 80% 153, my average speed for that over a 3 hour ride would be about 18mph. I spent most of the time between 145 and 155.
> 
> When I came back to cycling after a break I trained using the Mathetone method, which for me was 129bpm, within a few months I was averaging 17 to 18 at that low heart rate.


Max has been tested over a few rides but the first one was on a turbo . I've kept the lower number for now at 191 . 196 is max .
You say slow down but I held back today on a 25 mile ride as I wanted to just spin . Zone 3-4 where just taking it easy 
I did notice my times where not that bad compared to when I am going balls out though so that's making me think maybe I need to plan my TT's and not try to go so hard .


----------



## screenman (8 Aug 2015)

Have a look at the Wattbike site, it will give you closer ranges.

What HR do you hold for a 10?


----------



## Cuchilo (9 Aug 2015)

Ive only had the heart rate monitor for a short while so only have one 10 recorded . That averaged 175 . Another know loop I do I averaged 184 .
Today I did a test on a 25TT and tried not to go into Z5 so managed to average 162 and still push as hard as I could all the way around . Got a time of 1:11:54 .


----------



## Citius (12 Aug 2015)

Cuchilo said:


> and tried not to go into Z5 so managed to average 162 and still push as hard as I could all the way around



Those two statements are not compatible.


----------



## Cuchilo (12 Aug 2015)

Citius said:


> Those two statements are not compatible.


Why not ? I push hard with my legs while keeping my heart rate down . 
I did another test yesterday and watched my heart rate go down if i pushed a harder gear .


----------



## Citius (12 Aug 2015)

Either you are pushing as hard as you can for the duration of the test, or you are not. And if you are doing the test while trying to stay in a specific HR zone, then you are self-evidently not pushing as hard as you can for the duration of the test.


----------



## Cuchilo (12 Aug 2015)

Citius said:


> Either you are pushing as hard as you can for the duration of the test, or you are not. And if you are doing the test while trying to stay in a specific HR zone, then you are self-evidently not pushing as hard as you can for the duration of the test.


I'm sorry that you are finding it hard to understand .


----------



## Joshua Plumtree (12 Aug 2015)

Cuchilo - have you got those Zones quite right. If I go for a longish ride in Zone3/4, or sweet spot as I call it, I'm completely fecked when I get home, but you seem as though you're out for a leisurely Sunday afternoon jaunt, 

But, there again, I am an old bast*rd!


----------



## Citius (12 Aug 2015)

Cuchilo said:


> I'm sorry that you are finding it hard to understand .



I think I'm getting the fact that you are not pushing as hard as you can for the test period.


----------



## Cuchilo (12 Aug 2015)

Joshua Plumtree said:


> Cuchilo - have you got those Zones quite right. If I go for a longish ride in Zone3/4, or sweet spot as I call it, I'm completely fecked when I get home, but you seem as though you're out for a leisurely Sunday afternoon jaunt,
> 
> But, there again, I am an old bast*rd!


I took my resting and max heart rate and put those into the Garmin . The Garmin decided my zones for me .
I'm not sure a Sunday jaunt is how i would explain it but certainly not completely knackered . 
The test period is a 10 - 25 or 50 mile TT I am trying to work out how to ride them to MY best . What i am finding is if i push a bigger gear i can keep my speed but get my heart rate down . The problem with that is you need big legs to do that .


----------



## Citius (12 Aug 2015)

Cuchilo said:


> The problem with that is you need big legs to do that



What do you mean 'big legs' ? Your speed will be limited by the amount of power you can sustain. No more, no less.


----------



## Cuchilo (12 Aug 2015)

Citius said:


> What do you mean 'big legs' ? Your speed will be limited by the amount of power you can sustain. No more, no less.


Why do you keep asking me stupid questions ?


----------



## Citius (12 Aug 2015)

Cuchilo said:


> Why do you keep asking me stupid questions ?



Easy tiger. I asked you what you meant by 'big legs' - not sure what is 'stupid' about that. Asking for clarity is never stupid.


----------



## Justinslow (13 Aug 2015)




----------



## Citius (13 Aug 2015)

Never good to see such an elementary question being avoided....


----------



## Cuchilo (13 Aug 2015)

Justinslow said:


>


You'll have a long wait mate as he's on ignore .
Have a look on the TT forum . The riders rather than the internet experts have some good replies there .
Its a shame we have to go to another forum to discuss a topic @Moderators


----------



## Citius (13 Aug 2015)

Cuchilo said:


> You'll have a long wait mate as he's on ignore .
> Have a look on the TT forum . The riders rather than the internet experts have some good replies there .
> Its a shame we have to go to another forum to discuss a topic @Moderators



You can discuss it here (or perhaps in the training forum) - but seriously, I don't understand what is so difficult about being asked to clarify a statement which you have already made. The TT forum will be far less forgiving that this one - I doubt if they would tolerate that level of vagueness either. Internet experts are everywhere incidentally - even on the TT forum - there is no monopoly on expertise there. Who knows, they may even post here under different usernames 

I simply asked you what you meant by 'big legs' - do you mean legs that are physically big? Legs with big muscles? If you want a serious conversation, then start by talking in grown-up language which is appropriate to the topic. But all you have demonstrated so far is that you don't want to have to explain anything.

I thought I might try and help you on this topic, which is why I got involved - but nobody can do that (not even the experts on the TT forum) without you clarifying a few things along the way. You seem to have taken that as an affront - which is utterly bizarre. So seeing as you are not interested in finding a solution, I'll not confuse you anymore.


----------



## screenman (13 Aug 2015)

If your heart rate is high when soft pedalling then you are not very fit. A fit guy will have no problem riding in your zone 1 or 2 at 14 to 16 mph.


----------



## Citius (13 Aug 2015)

screenman said:


> If your heart rate is high when soft pedalling then you are not very fit. A fit guy will have no problem riding in your zone 1 or 2 at 14 to 16 mph.



He's doing 1:11 for a 25, if that helps...


----------



## screenman (13 Aug 2015)

Citius said:


> He's doing 1:11 for a 25, if that helps...



Not a lot, take 10 minutes off of that and I will say he is getting fitter.


----------



## Cuchilo (13 Aug 2015)

screenman said:


> Not a lot, take 10 minutes off of that and I will say he is getting fitter.


I'm guessing you're talking about my time for the 25 ?


----------



## screenman (13 Aug 2015)

Cuchilo said:


> I'm guessing you're talking about my time for the 25 ?



Yes, how many long rides of over 2 hours have you done in the last year. It is possible if not properly fit that you will not have much power difference across your heart range.

Out of interest what is your heart rate when you first sit on the bike.


----------



## Citius (13 Aug 2015)

Trouble is, give someone an HRM for xmas and all of a sudden they think they're training 'properly' when they aren't. This thread is proof of that...


----------



## Cuchilo (13 Aug 2015)

Nice ! Join a club , no one cares about your times but then ....
Opinions on my times on a course you didn't ride on that day and giving a time i should have done when only one rider went under the hour . 
And again . Another thread taken off course and the mods do nothing


----------



## screenman (13 Aug 2015)

I am not sure where you have taken offence. If you answered some of our questions we could maybe tell you how we got by.


----------



## Citius (13 Aug 2015)

Cuchilo said:


> Another thread taken off course and the mods do nothing



Nothing's been taken off course. You have just arrogantly dismissed any attempt to clarify any of the vague statements you have made. An HRM is a technical training tool, but you don't seem to have any interest in clarifying any of the technical details which would help someone resolve some of the issues that you are clearly having. Your loss - nobody else's.


----------



## Justinslow (13 Aug 2015)

I don't even use a HR monitor yet, so I'm afraid I cannot add anything to this discussion! Haven't even got a clue what my max HR is. I just ride as hard as I can at the moment during TT's, seems to be working so far - 3rd last week, 5th tonight, that's not to say I won't invest in a garmin and all the kit in the future, just this year sucking it and seeing.


----------



## Cuchilo (13 Aug 2015)

I'm not offended at all . I'm just after advice and help and i'm not getting it on this thread . All i am getting is the thread derailed by the same people .


----------



## Citius (13 Aug 2015)

Justinslow said:


> I don't even use a HR monitor yet, so I'm afraid I cannot add anything to this discussion! Haven't even got a clue what my max HR is. I just ride as hard as I can at the moment during TT's, seems to be working so far - 3rd last week, 5th tonight, that's not to say I won't invest in a garmin and all the kit in the future, just this year sucking it and seeing.



Agree with this ^^

Unless you have a PM, then you need to be able to 'feel' your effort in a TT. HR can vary so much from day to day that riding to a zone - especially a zone with a higher intensity - is a pretty useless gauge of performance and effort level.


----------



## Citius (13 Aug 2015)

Cuchilo said:


> I'm not offended at all . I'm just after advice and help and i'm not getting it on this thread . All i am getting is the thread derailed by the same people .



You are not getting advice because you are not trying particularly hard to be understood. That is evident from your answers (or lack of them). Your remarks to me have just been arrogant, for no obvious reason. Nobody is trying to 'derail' the thread, ffs.


----------



## Cuchilo (13 Aug 2015)

Justinslow said:


> I don't even use a HR monitor yet, so I'm afraid I cannot add anything to this discussion! Haven't even got a clue what my max HR is. I just ride as hard as I can at the moment during TT's, seems to be working so far - 3rd last week, 5th tonight, that's not to say I won't invest in a garmin and all the kit in the future, just this year sucking it and seeing.


Same here mate . First year and loving it ! Just annoyed that i cant go faster and the thing stopping me is my legs . 
Well done on 5th !


----------



## Citius (13 Aug 2015)

Cuchilo said:


> Just annoyed that i cant go faster and the thing stopping me is my legs



Your legs aren't stopping you.


----------



## Justinslow (13 Aug 2015)

Cuchilo said:


> Same here mate . First year and loving it ! Just annoyed that i cant go faster and the thing stopping me is my legs .
> Well done on 5th !


Cheers, yep likewise loving the Thursday nights racing, we've got a good little group of us so the craic and banter is enjoyable too - all trying to beat each other and move up the order to challenge the more established riders while not getting too "serious". My new 53 crank seems to be working well so has definitely helped me in my last two TT's. I've also knocked off the riding in the 2-3 days leading up to a TT so my last Base miles ride would be Sunday or Monday then nothing till Thursday, it seems to be working for me (at the moment) for instance I rode 60 miles Monday night at a reasonable pace. Ive set a PB every TT this year (ok it's my first year, so this probably won't continue). One of my mates religiously rides by HR but I think he backs off a bit too much when he should just give it the beans and push it! Just my opinion, but I know when I ride a TT there's nothing left to give at the end, if I've paced it wrong then that's a different story!
I don't even ride with a speedo, I don't really want to know, I'm going as fast as I can anyway, so it wouldn't make a lot of difference at the moment, I just think it would distract me to be honest.


----------



## Hacienda71 (13 Aug 2015)

If you really want to improve 10 tt times, you would be better off avoiding longer rides. Stick to rides of upto about an hour at a good pace and incorporate some speed intervals into your training as well . I have to confess I am not disciplined enough or keen enough on tt's to stick to that sort of regime, but that is the advice I was given buy some very quick testers.


----------



## Justinslow (13 Aug 2015)

Hacienda71 said:


> If you really want to improve 10 tt times, you would be better off avoiding longer rides. Stick to rides of upto about an hour at a good pace and incorporate some speed intervals into your training as well . I have to confess I am not disciplined enough or keen enough on tt's to stick to that sort of regime, but that is the advice I was given buy some very quick testers.


Yeah I get you, I just fancied a "big un"! Most of my rides are around 30 I guess. since starting TT's my ride distance has dropped a lot and sometimes I miss the bigger rides.


----------



## screenman (14 Aug 2015)

Cuchilo said:


> Same here mate . First year and loving it ! Just annoyed that i cant go faster and the thing stopping me is my legs .
> Well done on 5th !



Your legs are certainly not the things slowing you down. Not sure why you are not answering the questions.


----------



## screenman (14 Aug 2015)

Although not as good as a PM a HRM is better than nothing. Boardman did quite well using one.

I suggest the OP gets hold of the little red book by Peter Read, maybe slightly dated by now but I know a lot of people both fast and slow improved by following it.

Fast give you strong heart, long and steady a big heart, as a cyclist we want both. I was told, not by a fast mate but by a good quality coach.


----------



## Citius (14 Aug 2015)

[


screenman said:


> Although not as good as a PM a HRM is better than nothing. Boardman did quite well using one.



HRM is definitely better than nothing, but it is still utterly useless as a training aid if you don't know how to use it correctly.



screenman said:


> Fast give you strong heart, long and steady a big heart, as a cyclist we want both. I was told, not by a fast mate but by a good quality coach.



To be fair, you don't need to be a coach - 'good quality' or otherwise - to know that.


----------



## ayceejay (14 Aug 2015)

From your first post cuchillo I would say that you are working from an incorrect calculation of your personal zones and this is where you should start. There are published methods of arriving at your maximum heart rate or your lactate threshold that may be more useful given what you are training for. Also I think a HRM is a useful training tool but not as a guide on the day of the event. this is where you put to use what you have learned from your training. 
The 'big leg' thing is a bit of a red herring and the hurt that stops your legs is probably your inability to cope with lactic acid and you can change this through training. Please don't get citius started on leg strength again


----------



## Cuchilo (14 Aug 2015)

I'm pretty sure i have the zones correct . I went for a couple of rides today to look at some work on the defy and managed to stay in zone 2 quite easy . I guess the TT bike isn't the best bike to do zone 2 training on . I'll have another look at them and see if i can change a few things to suit me .


----------



## screenman (14 Aug 2015)

So what is your HR when you first sit on the bike, no cheating.


----------



## Cuchilo (14 Aug 2015)

92 according to this https://www.strava.com/activities/368706565/analysis Why would i cheat ? I have nothing to prove .


----------



## Citius (14 Aug 2015)

screenman said:


> So what is your HR when you first sit on the bike, no cheating.



Why is it relevant to know an HR number when he isn't exercising?


----------



## screenman (14 Aug 2015)

Citius said:


> Why is it relevant to know an HR number when he isn't exercising?



It gives a slight indication of his fitness, mine is around 55 sitting on the bike.

If sitting still is in the nineties would you say fitness is maybe a slight problem.


----------



## Citius (14 Aug 2015)

screenman said:


> It gives a slight indication of his fitness, mine is around 55 sitting on the bike.
> 
> If sitting still is in the nineties would you say fitness is maybe a slight problem.



I would say that it doesn't matter a single jot what his HR does when he is not stressing his CV system. The fact that he is still alive is good evidence that he has no major cardiac issues, and HR is so variable day-to-day and so particular to individuals anyway, so the only real issue is where his HR is when under load.


----------



## Tin Pot (14 Aug 2015)

Cuchilo said:


> I went for a gentle spin on the TT bike today with the aim of trying Z2 training . No chance of me doing that ! I'd fall off the bloody bike going that slow and my heart rate goes above that just thinking about riding !
> Z3-4 seemed an easy pace and I tried my best not to push it as I have a 25 in the morning .
> I have my resting and max heart rate so I'm pretty sure I've got the zones right . Anyone else train at Z2 ?



The thread is filled with bickering so I'll go back to the beginning and ignore the rest.

Z2 training is easy - once you've spent time getting used to it. On a bike it is easier to stay in Z2 than when running, riding is *generally* 10bpm slower for the same output as running.

Ther are many ways to calculate heart rates, the method I use to determine my Max heart rate is through a treadmill flat out for twenty minutes. Or flat out the last twenty minutes of a run. This is "dizzy and/or sick" flat out.

I then note my max observed heart rate throughout my training - even climbing 25% gradients I've not observed my max on a bike, but only about five beats off.

I then calculate zones as a percentage of my max.
Here's a calculator that shows the many methods output:
http://www.digifit.com/heartratezones/training-zones.asp

Training in zone 2 is not supposed to feel hard work, the point is that relatively gentle exercise over time builds your strength and endurance better than beating yourself up every time. This way, when it comes to a race you are more likely to do better.

As usual, most people's intuitive approach to work out as hard as they can is wrong.

Unless you've done an appropriate test, I doubt your Garmin knows your real max heart rate.


----------



## 50000tears (14 Aug 2015)

Citius said:


> I would say that it doesn't matter a single jot what his HR does when he is not stressing his CV system. The fact that he is still alive is good evidence that he has no major cardiac issues, and HR is so variable day-to-day and so particular to individuals anyway, so the only real issue is where his HR is when under load.



Have to agree with this. My resting HR is 48 but just before I set off on my ride it is often around 90, excited for the ride I guess. . Easy pace on the flat is around the same.


----------



## screenman (14 Aug 2015)

I have hit my max a few times at the top end of a hill climb race. The other times were whilst being tested by a cycling coach.


----------



## screenman (14 Aug 2015)

Citius said:


> I would say that it doesn't matter a single jot what his HR does when he is not stressing his CV system. The fact that he is still alive is good evidence that he has no major cardiac issues, and HR is so variable day-to-day and so particular to individuals anyway, so the only real issue is where his HR is when under load.



Tell me how many fit racing cyclist which he hopes to become would have a HR of 90+ just putting their leg over the cross bar, I can answer that for you, none.


----------



## Citius (14 Aug 2015)

screenman said:


> Tell me how many fit racing cyclist which he hopes to become would have a HR of 90+ just putting their leg over the cross bar, I can answer that for you, none.



You sound very certain. I would have absolutely no idea - for the reasons that both myself and @50000tears suggest. Non-exercise HR is an irrelevant measure in this context.


----------



## Tin Pot (14 Aug 2015)

I converted to Ben Greenfields method last year, which makes more sense for a lot of reasons. I've seen a few triathletes prefer this method too:

http://www.bengreenfieldfitness.com/2013/03/how-heart-rate-zones-work/
Z1 70-76% LTHR
Z2 77-85%
Z3 86-95%
Z4 96-103%
Z5 104+

Basically it simplifies the whole thing, for my training I'm either aiming for Z2 or Z4, I don't need to worry about the rest.


----------



## screenman (14 Aug 2015)

Citius said:


> You sound very certain. I would have absolutely no idea - for the reasons that both myself and @50000tears suggest. Non-exercise HR is an irrelevant measure in this context.



I trained and raced in the years that a HRM was the only option, I just looked around and learned.


----------



## screenman (14 Aug 2015)

Tin Pot said:


> I converted to Ben Greenfields method last year, which makes more sense for a lot of reasons. I've seen a few triathletes prefer this method too:
> 
> You need to know what rate to take the percentage from. Or am I wrong on that.
> 
> ...


----------



## Citius (14 Aug 2015)

screenman said:


> I trained and raced in the years that a HRM was the only option, I just looked around and learned.



I did the same. But I never paid any regard to what other people's HR were doing, cos it was irrelevant. A qood quality coach told me that.


----------



## screenman (14 Aug 2015)

I noticed that riders on the line with a low HR were more likely to win than those ticking over higher.

The coach bit was to counter a mate of a mates sisters cousin.


----------



## Justinslow (14 Aug 2015)

I'm baffled by all this HR stuff, I'm a newbie so I guess I'll learn, I only have to think about doing a TT and my heart rate soars! When I'm actually doing one I seem to settle down and ride more according to my breathing - as hard as I can relative to how much air I can shift.


----------



## HLaB (14 Aug 2015)

I don't if its been said but a lot of folk ignore hr and use power to train which is more regular regardless of conditions, etc. I wish I could afford one though 
It might be a misconception but I find I go better when I just forget about it.


----------



## HLaB (14 Aug 2015)

screenman said:


> I noticed that riders on the line with a low HR were more likely to win than those ticking over higher.
> 
> The coach bit was to counter a mate of a mates sisters cousin.


There's truth in that, I've not looked at it closely but Ive known a few cyclists who are quite a bit younger than me but have a lower hr and are great riders (well compared to me anyway) ;-)


----------



## 50000tears (14 Aug 2015)

screenman said:


> I noticed that riders on the line with a low HR were more likely to win than those ticking over higher.
> 
> The coach bit was to counter a mate of a mates sisters cousin.



Whilst a lower resting HR can be a trait, and has been, of some of the best endurance cyclists and athletes alike we may be a bit at cross purposes here. The original question from yourself was what a persons HR was when stepping over a bike. I was just pointing out that my HR can be a little elevated in that situation regardless of fitness. The fact that I can cruise along at a reasonable speed with it much the same suggests that this is not any good way to define a persons fitness.

I am not the best example of course as my fitness still has a long way to go, but in using a HRM for the last year I can be happy that I have become a lot more efficient over that time in fitness terms. My standing over the bike HR doesn't change much but as I can now climb hills in zone 2 that used to send me into zone 5 I must still be progressing.


----------



## ayceejay (14 Aug 2015)

It may be useful to define 'heart rate' so that we understand what the numbers mean
_*Heart rate*, also known as pulse, is the number of times a person's *heart beats* per minute. A normal *heart rate* depends on the individual, age, body size, *heart* conditions, whether the person is sitting or moving, medication use and even air temperature._
When a person is at rest, that is like you have just woken up in the morning a heart rate of 60 bpm is considered normal.
A trained athlete has the ability to move blood around the body efficiently with a lower heart rate than an untrained person and some cyclist have a heart rate that would be considered dangerous in anyone else. Before embarking on a quest to improve in this area it would be a good idea to eliminate any medical problems.


----------



## Citius (14 Aug 2015)

Seriously, I think we can put the 'heart rate' down as understood already. Even cuchilo probably gets that...


----------



## screenman (15 Aug 2015)

50000tears said:


> Whilst a lower resting HR can be a trait, and has been, of some of the best endurance cyclists and athletes alike we may be a bit at cross purposes here. The original question from yourself was what a persons HR was when stepping over a bike. I was just pointing out that my HR can be a little elevated in that situation regardless of fitness. The fact that I can cruise along at a reasonable speed with it much the same suggests that this is not any good way to define a persons fitness.
> 
> I am not the best example of course as my fitness still has a long way to go, but in using a HRM for the last year I can be happy that I have become a lot more efficient over that time in fitness terms. My standing over the bike HR doesn't change much but as I can now climb hills in zone 2 that used to send me into zone 5 I must still be progressing.



You will find as your fitness imroves more your stepover rate will decrease. The line below of ayceejay is my point.

"A trained athlete has the ability to move blood around the body efficiently with a lower heart rate than an untrained person."


----------



## Tin Pot (15 Aug 2015)

Justinslow said:


> I'm baffled by all this HR stuff, I'm a newbie so I guess I'll learn, I only have to think about doing a TT and my heart rate soars! When I'm actually doing one I seem to settle down and ride more according to my breathing - as hard as I can relative to how much air I can shift.



Which might be fine during a time trial, but is not the most effective way to train for a time trial.


----------



## Tin Pot (15 Aug 2015)

screenman said:


> You need to know what rate to take percentages from.



Yes, this was a continuation of my previous post. Determine your max, or Lactate Threshold Heart Rate (LTHR) from the test I described.

It's much easier to maintain what your LTHR is than to go get a lab condition VO2 Max every few months.


----------



## Citius (15 Aug 2015)

screenman said:


> You will find as your fitness imroves more your stepover rate will decrease.



Now, I've been riding, racing and coaching for many many years now - and I can honestly say that I have never heard of - or never heard anyone else refer to - 'stepover heart rate'. I've never seen any reference to it, and I have never heard any other coach or sports scientist refer to it either. 

So it is safe to assume that either I (and others) have missed a huge chunk of potentially performance enhancing data - or that it is a completely made-up and irrelevant metric. I'm going to guess the latter.


----------



## screenman (15 Aug 2015)

I had a period of 2 years being unfit, my stepover rate was about 90 I am now back fit and my stepover rate is about 55, please explain why that is. Where have I said it is performance enhancing?


----------



## Tin Pot (15 Aug 2015)

screenman said:


> I had a period of 2 years being unfit, my stepover rate was about 90 I am now back fit and my stepover rate is about 55, please explain why that is. Where have I said it is performance enhancing?



You can't ask people to prove something based on a factor nobody agrees with.

No one thinks valid or uses "step over rate" - if you want to put together a logical argument and a scientific paper on why this rate is a valid measure of anything, then we can respond.

Until then, the rest of the world will use resting heart rate, lactate threshold and VO2 max.


----------



## Citius (15 Aug 2015)

screenman said:


> I had a period of 2 years being unfit, my stepover rate was about 90 I am now back fit and my stepover rate is about 55, please explain why that is. Where have I said it is performance enhancing?



I'm not suggesting it is 'performance enhancing' in itself, simply that if you measure something, the result ought to mean something which can then be acted upon. The stepover measurement means absolutely nothing and is not indicative of anything, because there are too many external variables to make the data meaningful and actionable.

It's a bit like me saying "yesterday, while sitting at my PC, my HR was 68bpm, while today it is 64bpm - therefore, I can deduce that typing on my keyboard yesterday has reduced my HR by 4bpm." Now, if that sounds absurd - it's because it is absurd.


----------



## ayceejay (15 Aug 2015)

I have never heard of a standover heart rate either but with an open mind I wonder what this could tell us, after all athletic training is not fixed and there might be something to learn.
If you have a resting heart rate of say 59 bpm but a *consistent *standover rate of 91 bpm which one is better for calculating zones?
If your SOR goes up to 120 on race day we can put this down to anxiety or excitement but if it is a constant 91 every day what does this mean? You go from 59 to 91 just dressing and preparing for a ride - is this an indicator of anything, especially if it goes down or stays the same when you start to ride.


----------



## Tin Pot (15 Aug 2015)

ayceejay said:


> I have never heard of a standover heart rate either but with an open mind I wonder what this could tell us, after all athletic training is not fixed and there might be something to learn.
> If you have a resting heart rate of say 59 bpm but a *consistent *standover rate of 91 bpm which one is better for calculating zones?
> If your SOR goes up to 120 on race day we can put this down to anxiety or excitement but if it is a constant 91 every day what does this mean? You go from 59 to 91 just dressing and preparing for a ride - is this an indicator of anything, especially if it goes down or stays the same when you start to ride.



No, it doesn't tell us anything.

Neither do:
Sitting At Desk Heart Rate
Talking On The Phone Heart Rate or
Feeling Slightly Uneasy Heart Rate


----------



## Citius (15 Aug 2015)

ayceejay said:


> I have never heard of a standover heart rate either but with an open mind I wonder what this could tell us, after all athletic training is not fixed and there might be something to learn.



Standing over a bike does not really constitute 'athletic training' though, does it. All a 'stand-over' HR will tell you is what your HR was doing while you were standing over your bike. You might as well measure your HR while sitting on the toilet for all the relevance it will have.


----------



## Citius (15 Aug 2015)

Tin Pot said:


> No, it doesn't tell us anything.
> 
> Neither do:
> Sitting At Desk Heart Rate
> ...



What about heart rate while measuring heart rate..?


----------



## ayceejay (15 Aug 2015)

Such definitive knowledge is to be admired. 
If we are aiming for a low heart rate so that we can sustain the effort in an endurance event knowing what else elevates the heart rate besides the actual exercise would be useful to know.
I am assuming we are in agreement that an elevated heart rate means that the heart is working harder?


----------



## Citius (15 Aug 2015)

ayceejay said:


> If we are aiming for a low heart rate so that we can sustain the effort in an endurance event knowing what else elevates the heart rate besides the actual exercise would be useful to know.



Why would it be useful to know that? And how would you alter your training in response to that information?



ayceejay said:


> I am assuming we are in agreement that an elevated heart rate means that the heart is working harder?



I'm sure we can also agree that when the sun comes up, it means it's daytime. You just keep on flogging that dead horse...


----------



## ayceejay (15 Aug 2015)

All you need in this life is ignorance and confidence, and then success is sure.
Mark Twain


----------



## screenman (15 Aug 2015)

Citius said:


> Why would it be useful to know that? And how would you alter your training in response to that information?
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure we can also agree that when the sun comes up, it means it's daytime. You just keep on flogging that dead horse...



Are you suggesting that an elevated HR is not working harder than one beating slower, just clarifying.


----------



## Andrew_P (15 Aug 2015)

Cuchilo said:


> Just looking at my garmin now and it puts my zones as 1 = 92 - 111 BPM
> Zone 5 as 166 - 185 BPM .
> Riding normally for training that puts me in zone 4-5 all the time  and that's trying not to put in extra effort ( apart from hills )


If you are 35 and you are using 220- your age as your max HR it is not right, just a quick look on your Strava and you have hit 190 going up a hill. So as most people have said you really need to find your true or a realistic max HR to get a realistic view on zones. Garmin will use your max HR to give you zones working backwards from max, fairly confident that whatever you put in as resting HR won't effect zones.


----------



## Citius (15 Aug 2015)

screenman said:


> Are you suggesting that an elevated HR is not working harder than one beating slower, just clarifying.



I think we can all accept that a heart that beats faster is beating faster than one that beats slower. The 'working harder' bit is not clear cut, as there are other factors which affect that. An elevated reading from the same heart on different days would certainly suggest it is working harder for some reason. But it doesn't automatically follow that you are somehow more aerobically challenged than you were the day before.


----------



## Citius (15 Aug 2015)

ayceejay said:


> All you need in this life is ignorance and confidence, and then success is sure.
> Mark Twain



So the best response you can offer to mine and Tin Pot's perfectly reasonable comments and questions is a quote from Mark Twain? And because you can't answer them, WE are the ignorant ones???

Seriously, you've added nothing to this thread apart from a series of truisms and general confusion. It's not like the OP wasn't confused enough already.


----------



## ayceejay (15 Aug 2015)

Citius: I have attempted to explore what may not be as clear to others as it is to you although I am not convinced that you know *everything* which is what your attitude implies - hence the Twain quote. 
I am now sure that any conversation with you in it will go no further than what you so arrogantly claim to be self evident. Others on this thread have expressed concerns about how best to use the information they get from a HRM and you have gone out of your way to ridicule them, what is the point of this?


----------



## Citius (15 Aug 2015)

ayceejay said:


> Citius: I have attempted to explore what may not be as clear to others as it is to you although I am not convinced that you know *everything* which is what your attitude implies - hence the Twain quote.



I don't claim to know everything. But I know enough to understand that 'standover HR' is a completely random, made-up thing, not to mention a massive distraction. I have asked you to explain how such a thing might be useful, but you don't seem able. Until then, I will dismiss it as 'not relevant.



ayceejay said:


> I am now sure that any conversation with you in it will go no further than what you so arrogantly claim to be self evident. Others on this thread have expressed concerns about how best to use the information they get from a HRM and you have gone out of your way to ridicule them, what is the point of this?



I haven't ridiculed anyone on this thread, except the OP - from whom I requested some clarification in order to try to help him, and all I got in return was a shameful display of stubborn arrogance. Oh, and I also ridiculed you, but we already know that. Generally, I will ridicule anyone who I believe is talking unsubstantiated bollox. When I say ridicule - what I obviously mean is 'clarification'. If you take it as 'ridicule', then that is an issue for you, not me.

If you want me to take you seriously, start proving otherwise.


----------



## Tin Pot (15 Aug 2015)

ayceejay said:


> Such definitive knowledge is to be admired.
> If we are aiming for a low heart rate so that we can sustain the effort in an endurance event knowing what else elevates the heart rate besides the actual exercise would be useful to know.
> I am assuming we are in agreement that an elevated heart rate means that the heart is working harder?



This is indeed interesting, and thankfully, and finally, a different question entirely.

Infection, caffeine, fatigue, stress, these are but some of the known external factors that can effect heart rate. These have been and are still being studied.

If you train to heart rate regularly I've heard that you might even detect illness before other symptoms arise. I've noticed coffee and hangovers markedly effect the HR.


----------



## Cuchilo (15 Aug 2015)

ayceejay said:


> Citius: I have attempted to explore what may not be as clear to others as it is to you although I am not convinced that you know *everything* which is what your attitude implies - hence the Twain quote.
> I am now sure that any conversation with you in it will go no further than what you so arrogantly claim to be self evident. Others on this thread have expressed concerns about how best to use the information they get from a HRM and you have gone out of your way to ridicule them, what is the point of this?


Just put him on ignore mate . He seems to have a free pass from the mods to turn every thread he decides into shoot 
I went out today to try a bit of zone 2 training after using the calculator provided earlier . I've adjusted my zones accordingly and used the road bike , it was a lot easier to stay in zone 2 low zone 3 .
Not sure i will be able to do that on the TT bike though as its sooooo much fun going fast 
I also realized why my magic standover BPM was high . My clothes are upstairs in the wardrobe but my riding gear is downstairs in the kitchen .


----------



## screenman (15 Aug 2015)

Tin Pot said:


> This is indeed interesting, and thankfully, and finally, a different question entirely.
> 
> Infection, caffeine, fatigue, stress, these are but some of the known external factors that can effect heart rate. These have been and are still being studied.
> 
> If you train to heart rate regularly I've heard that you might even detect illness before other symptoms arise. I've noticed coffee and hangovers markedly effect the HR.



So if you take you HR at the same pre ride point it will give you an idea of any problems. Overtraining, illness etc. As you say will show up in my experience.


----------



## Citius (15 Aug 2015)

Cuchilo said:


> Just put him on ignore mate . He seems to have a free pass from the mods to turn every thread he decides into shoot



Unlike you, I haven't said anything 'shoot' on this thread. But you wouldn't know that, because you aren't listening and I'm on ignore. If you put people on ignore because they ask you 'difficult' questions, then don't complain when the only answers you see on your computer screen are utter bollox from people talking about 'standover HR'...


----------



## Citius (15 Aug 2015)

screenman said:


> So if you take you HR at the same pre ride point it will give you an idea of any problems. Overtraining, illness etc. As you say will show up in my experience.



Realistically, all an elevated HR will tell you is that your HR is elevated. It might be a portent of impending illness, or it might be nothing of the sort. A cardiologist wouldn't be able to predict anything specific like that, so what chance has anyone else got? The list of possibilities is simply too big for an elevated HR to tell you anything of any actionable value.


----------



## screenman (15 Aug 2015)

So we have a couple of might be to think about then.


----------



## Citius (15 Aug 2015)

screenman said:


> So we have a couple of might be to think about then.



I would suggest only thinking about things that matter in relation to HR - like getting your MHR or LTHR nailed and then setting some appropriate zones according to whatever training plan you may be following. I only ever had three zones based on %MHR, below 75%, 75-85% and 85-91%. Any efforts much above 90% can't really be measured reliably as they tend to be short duration and HR lag means you will never get a reliable reading anyway.


----------



## screenman (15 Aug 2015)

Not disagreeing there. But I know my heart far better than you do, and if it is 10 beats up when throwing my leg over the bike and sitting still for 30 seconds something is not right with me.

Also a cyclist standing still with a HR of 90 plus is either not as fit as they could be or something else is not right, as you mentioned earlier. Either way they may need looking at.


----------



## Citius (15 Aug 2015)

We will have to differ there. I no longer train with HR, so I therefore have no idea if my HR is 75, 90 or 110 before I get on the bike. It doesn't matter, and consequently, it doesn't stop me going for a ride - along with the many other millions of cyclists who don't monitor HR.

Cyclists running off to the docs whenever their HR is 10bpm over is probably the reason why the GP service is on the verge of collapse.


----------



## screenman (15 Aug 2015)

Citius said:


> We will have to differ there. I no longer train with HR, so I therefore have no idea if my HR is 75, 90 or 110 before I get on the bike. It doesn't matter, and consequently, it doesn't stop me going for a ride - along with the many other millions of cyclists who don't monitor HR.
> 
> Cyclists running off to the docs whenever their HR is 10bpm over is probably the reason why the GP service is on the verge of collapse.




I do use a Garmin with the HE showing, I do not run off to the doctors, what would be the point as we have a 5 week wait to see one at the moment.

Why do you have to insult people with your posts, I sure am glad that you never coached myself.


----------



## Citius (15 Aug 2015)

screenman said:


> I do not run off to the doctors, what would be the point as we have a 5 week wait to see one at the moment



Please tell me you you were being deliberately ironic there?



screenman said:


> Why do you have to insult people with your posts,



I wasn't aware that I was. Which part do you find insulting?


----------



## screenman (15 Aug 2015)

I was not being ironic, that is the current wait here.

Your insinuation that somebody who uses a HR guide would waste NHS time.


----------



## Tin Pot (15 Aug 2015)

screenman said:


> *So* if you take you HR at the same pre ride point it will give you an idea of any problems. Overtraining, illness etc. As you say will show up in my experience.



This clearly does not follow from my posts.

This is, was and will always, be wrong.

End.


----------



## screenman (15 Aug 2015)

Tin Pot said:


> This clearly does not follow from my posts.
> 
> This is, was and will always, be wrong.
> 
> End.



Why?


----------



## Cuchilo (15 Aug 2015)

I think ive started slow twiching


----------



## Citius (15 Aug 2015)

screenman said:


> I was not being ironic, that is the current wait here.



I said (rather tongue in cheek) the GP service was on the verge of collapse. You said you wouldn't run off to the docs as there's a 5-week wait. The irony was that you inadvertently confirmed my comment. Did you not get that?



screenman said:


> Your insinuation that somebody who uses a HR guide would waste NHS time.



If they took your advice on this thread then they almost certainly would be doing just that.


----------



## Tin Pot (15 Aug 2015)

Cuchilo said:


> I think ive started slow twiching





_Tin Pot, a Japanese master during the Meiji era(1868-1912), received Screenman who came to inquire about HR.
Tin Pot served tea. He poured his visitor's cup full, and then kept on pouring.
Screenman watched the overflow until he no longer could restrain himself. "It is overfull. No more will go in!"
"Like this cup," Tin Pot said, "you are full of your own opinions and speculations. How can I show you HR unless you first empty your cup?"_


----------



## screenman (15 Aug 2015)

You have kept saying I am wrong but failed to educate me properly. I will happily say I only know what I was told by coaches in the eighties, who could have course been since proved wrong.

Now explain please.


----------



## Tin Pot (15 Aug 2015)

Tin Pot said:


> You can't ask people to prove something based on a factor nobody agrees with.
> 
> No one thinks valid or uses "step over rate" - if you want to put together a logical argument and a scientific paper on why this rate is a valid measure of anything, then we can respond.
> 
> Until then, the rest of the world will use resting heart rate, lactate threshold and VO2 max.


----------



## screenman (15 Aug 2015)

Was that a lesson coach?


----------



## Citius (15 Aug 2015)

screenman said:


> Was that a lesson coach?



What I think Tin Pot is trying to tell you is that it is pointless trying to educate you until you abandon this absurd 'standover HR' and "oh-oh, 10 beats over - better call 999" nonsense. Some of Cuchilo's stuff actually starts to look sensible when compared to that.


----------



## Cuchilo (15 Aug 2015)

This is a pretty nice route i have mapped out for my self for a Sunday ride . https://www.strava.com/activities/358736044 
Would it help for me to do it at Z2 and use the hills to go flat out or just miss the hills ?


----------



## Citius (15 Aug 2015)

Cuchilo said:


> Would it help for me to do it at Z2 and use the hills to go flat out or just miss the hills ?



That would depend entirely on what your training objectives are. Not sure what you think you are going to achieve by riding everywhere at 13mph.


----------



## ayceejay (15 Aug 2015)

The funny thing is, I ask a question "_If your SOR goes up to 120 on race day we can put this down to anxiety or excitement but if it is a constant 91 every day what does this mean? You go from 59 to 91 just dressing and preparing for a ride - is this an indicator of anything, especially if it goes down or stays the same when you start to ride._" and Citius asks me to prove that my question is valid. Does this make sense?
Those aware of the subtleties of language may spot that I am not making a statement that this is indeed a signifier of something relevant to training with a heart rate meter but *asking* if there is anything we can learn from someones observation that their heart rate goes up as they sit on their bike.


----------



## Citius (16 Aug 2015)

As people have repeatedly told you - there is nothing to be inferred from that. So just to be clear, the answer to your question is 'no'.

'Stand over HR' appears to be an unexplored area of sports science, so perhaps you should research it and come up with a discussion paper on it. Until then, as I said before, we can dismiss it as 'not relevant'.

Next week: the team will discuss whether clipping in your right foot before your left has an impact on HR. The phrase we will use is clip-in HR'...

Sorry for my flippant replies, but this really is an absurd discussion. I got accused earlier of trying to derail the thread. Ironically, the thread is now fully off the rails thanks to this ridiculous 'stand over' nonsense....


----------



## Cuchilo (16 Aug 2015)

Went for a 44 mile ride today and rode pretty hard . After adjusting my zones i averaged zone 3 . Quite surprised by that but i did get lost a couple of times so stopped a couple of times plus adding traffic etc .


----------



## Citius (16 Aug 2015)

None of that means anything. Are you even following a training schedule?


----------



## ayceejay (16 Aug 2015)

There does seem to be a disconnect in Cuchillo's understanding of heart rate training Citius and this latest is an example. I did try to introduce some basics that you called 'truisms' but I am at a loss to understand what_ After adjusting my zones i averaged zone 3 _could mean.


----------



## 50000tears (17 Aug 2015)

Cuchilo said:


> Went for a 44 mile ride today and rode pretty hard . After adjusting my zones i averaged zone 3 . Quite surprised by that but i did get lost a couple of times so stopped a couple of times plus adding traffic etc .



Using HR training zones in training is not about an average over the ride but about staying in a particular zone for set periods of time. I did a very similar length ride today and my "average" says zone 2 but it was tempo zone 3 riding for the majority of it.


----------



## Cuchilo (17 Aug 2015)

That explains it then . I was in zone 4 for alot of the ride . There is a reason for my mis-understanding on how to use a heart rate monitor . It's because i am trying to learn how to use a heart rate monitor . Some of you are being very helpful so thankyou .


----------



## Citius (17 Aug 2015)

Cuchilo said:


> It's because i am trying to learn how to use a heart rate monitor . Some of you are being very helpful so thankyou



Your arrogance is astonishing. You say you are trying to learn, but you won't listen to those trying to help you.

I was the first to respond to this thread (second post, page 1) where I asked you to clarify what your numbers were - all I got in return was a series of smug, arrogant dismissals and then you apparently put me on ignore. I would urge anyone reading this thread to re-read the first couple of pages again, just to remind themselves how utterly stupid that was. Simply stating 'zone 2' or 'zone 4' means nothing as there are an infinite number of training zones out there, depending on how you define them. One rider's 'zone 2' could be entierly different to another's, as this thread underlines.

Over the length of a 2-3hr ride, hitting an average HR is fine because staying in a single zone over that length of time will be practically impossible, unless you are on a long, flat, straight road with no junctions that you can ride for the duration.

The biggest issue is that you genuinely don't seem to understand WHY you are doing it. What was the expected training benefit from your last ride in zone 3/4/whatever? Unless you are going out with a purpose and an objective, then you don't need HR.


----------



## Citius (17 Aug 2015)

ayceejay said:


> There does seem to be a disconnect in Cuchillo's understanding of heart rate training Citius and this latest is an example. I did try to introduce some basics that you called 'truisms' but I am at a loss to understand what_ After adjusting my zones i averaged zone 3 _could mean.



I agree there is a disconnect (a massive one). But we _really_ didn't need the dictionary definition of 'heart rate'. We are trying to measure it - not agree on a definition.


----------



## Tin Pot (17 Aug 2015)

Cuchilo said:


> Went for a 44 mile ride today and rode pretty hard . After adjusting my zones i averaged zone 3 . Quite surprised by that but i did get lost a couple of times so stopped a couple of times plus adding traffic etc .



How did you adjust your zones, and what are they now?


----------



## 50000tears (17 Aug 2015)

Cuchilo can I as how you set your HR zones? You have mentioned more than once about adjusting them after a ride. Although the zones do need resetting periodically as you get fitter, for the most part they get set by a riding at certain intensities in a single ride. These are often best done on a turbo or other indoor trainer so that you can focus on the effort and not worry about traffic. Once they are set the HR numbers for each zone do not get adjusted until you redo the test.


----------



## Cuchilo (17 Aug 2015)

I used this provided by Tinpot http://www.digifit.com/heartratezones/training-zones.asp 
My resting is 66BPM and max has been 196BPM
Z1 = 98-117
Z2 = 117-137
Z3 = 137-156
Z4 = 156-176
Z5 = 176-196
I've only just got the monitor so using this as a base to start with .


----------



## Tin Pot (17 Aug 2015)

Cuchilo said:


> I used this provided by Tinpot http://www.digifit.com/heartratezones/training-zones.asp
> My resting is 66BPM and max has been 196BPM
> Z1 = 98-117
> Z2 = 117-137
> ...



Cool. Z2 will improve your endurance, build the slow twitch muscles and cardiovascular fitness.

Occasional burst, such as a hill climb, into Z3 or 4 is beneficial too, but try to get your heart rate down afterwards so you can continue in that mode.

Check this out when you get time:
http://www.bengreenfieldfitness.com/2013/03/how-heart-rate-zones-work/

Keep it up, and watch your fitness improve!


----------



## Chris_Kn (17 Aug 2015)

Interesting article here* Heart Rate Training*

Chris.


----------



## ayceejay (17 Aug 2015)

Citius said:


> I agree there is a disconnect (a massive one). But we _really_ didn't need the dictionary definition of 'heart rate'. We are trying to measure it - not agree on a definition.


You always come across as such a reasonable and understanding kind of chap Citius, does it take much practice?


----------



## Citius (17 Aug 2015)

I don't do 'reasonable' - I do 'honesty' though...

Honesty is rarely popular with the arrogant or stubborn, unfortunately..


----------



## Cuchilo (17 Aug 2015)

Tin Pot said:


> Cool. Z2 will improve your endurance, build the slow twitch muscles and cardiovascular fitness.
> 
> Occasional burst, such as a hill climb, into Z3 or 4 is beneficial too, but try to get your heart rate down afterwards so you can continue in that mode.
> 
> ...


I guess my local loop of 18 miles around Richmond park and back home would be good for that ? A few hills to climb but then park and park pretty much all the way to and from there . Training myself to stay out of Z4 is going to be hard though . It's sooooo much fun


----------



## Tin Pot (17 Aug 2015)

Cuchilo said:


> I guess my local loop of 18 miles around Richmond park and back home would be good for that ? A few hills to climb but then park and park pretty much all the way to and from there . Training myself to stay out of Z4 is going to be hard though . It's sooooo much fun


You're into TTs aren't you?

If that's what youre looking to improve on, I would have a mix of sessions - a longer Z2 ride, a hill climbing, and some sprint training. But I don't don't do TT, so I'm not the best to ask...


----------



## Cuchilo (17 Aug 2015)

Tin Pot said:


> You're into TTs aren't you?
> 
> If that's what youre looking to improve on, I would have a mix of sessions - a longer Z2 ride, a hill climbing, and some sprint training. But I don't don't do TT, so I'm not the best to ask...


Yes , done about 15 this year and loving it . Just getting times set for my first season on 10 25 and 50 . I have a few more 25's to do this year and may look around for a few more 10's but i dont think i will do another 50 this year . May try 2 next year but boy do they hurt !
I got the handicap on a WLC event and my times where getting better but i seem to have got to the stage where i need to start looking at things rather than just riding like a nutter until i'm farked 
You're doing a lot better than the bloke that claims to be a coach so please do carry on joining in this thread  and coach , you're fired baby


----------



## Citius (17 Aug 2015)

Tin Pot said:


> If that's what youre looking to improve on, I would have a mix of sessions - a longer Z2 ride, a hill climbing, and some sprint training. But I don't don't do TT, so I'm not the best to ask...



Sorry, I'm going to disagree with this. Unless the TTs are hilly, I wouldn't incorporate hill work or even sprint work into a schedule. 10s and 25s are all about riding at sustainable threshold for the duration, probably slightly higher than threshold for a 10. I would drop the distances and increase the intensity. Sets of short repeated efforts like 1min, 5min and maybe 20min intervals at around 85-90% MHR, once or twice a week, together with a couple of LSD/recovery rides is what I'd do.

You only have to read the thread to realise that's not going to happen though. On the upside, it's nice to see we can add 'patronising' to Cuchilo's list of qualities he has displayed on this thread. I'm going to assume he's actually 12, or something.


----------



## 50000tears (17 Aug 2015)

Citius said:


> Sorry, I'm going to disagree with this. Unless the TTs are hilly, I wouldn't incorporate hill work or even sprint work into a schedule. 10s and 25s are all about riding at sustainable threshold for the duration, probably slightly higher than threshold for a 10. I would drop the distances and increase the intensity. Sets of short repeated efforts like 1min, 5min and maybe 20min intervals at around 85-90% MHR, once or twice a week, together with a couple of LSD/recovery rides is what I'd do.



Is this not a little contradictory? I agree that short intense efforts are excellent TT training for increasing lactate threshold and such like but hill work can be an excellent way to do this. Repeated efforts up 3-5 min climb or a long sustained climb can both be easily used to generate the same training result.


----------



## Citius (17 Aug 2015)

Hill work usually puts you in a different position, a different speed, a different gear and a different cadence to riding on the flat. If the aim is flat 10s and 25s, I would focus on creating and maintaining power in the position you will be riding in. Anything else would be less specific and therefore (likely) less effective.


----------



## 50000tears (17 Aug 2015)

I understand what you are saying but with somebody with still a long way to go with fitness the intensity, and the corresponding increases in fitness, is more important than being 100% focused on just race specific training. Not saying you are wrong as either would work. Also don't see why you would be in a different cadence as even on hills this is a product of gear selection. Can you also explain the relevance of different gear/speed when we are training the cardiovascular system?


----------



## Citius (17 Aug 2015)

50000tears said:


> I understand what you are saying but with somebody with still a long way to go with fitness the intensity, and the corresponding increases in fitness, is more important than being 100% focused on just race specific training.



Agreed, at low levels of fitness then almost any kind of riding will help. But my understanding was the focus was on improving 10 & 25 times for someone who is already riding 10s and 25s.



50000tears said:


> Also don't see why you would be in a different cadence as even on hills this is a product of gear selection. Can you also explain the relevance of different gear/speed when we are training the cardiovascular system?



I'm just applying the law of specificity, really. It's difficult to explain, but pushing 250w up a hill is never going to feel the same as pushing 250w in an aero position on a TT bike. If you look at some of the power data from the TdF - some of the riders who were averaging close to 400w in the alps (Froome's average was 414w apparently), were generally only managing around 300w in the TTs. 400w in the alps is probably only going to give you 12-15mph. 400w on the flat is probably going to give you in excess of 30-35mph, now those figures are guesses, but you see how the specifics can make a difference.

If you are racing on the flat, then the best training for that is going to be learning to ride fast on the flat. Of course you can do other stuff, but that's certainly where the focus should be, IMO...


----------



## 50000tears (17 Aug 2015)

Thanks Citius nice explanation. Certainly if Cuchilo is currently in a TT season with events to come then you are right that specific training does have the edge. As part of an overall training plan however I still do think that hill work offers a really really good "bang for you buck" for a wide variety of cycle events including TTs. The only real downside in doing hill work is the risk of doing too much and needing longer to recover before your next hard session.


----------



## Citius (17 Aug 2015)

Yep, unless you live in the fens, then hills are pretty much inevitable wherever you are. But there are some big, heavy testers out there that produce big power on the flat and reguarly place top 5/10 in flat 10s, 25s or 50s. They'd be lucky to get into the top 50 on most HCs though.


----------



## 50000tears (18 Aug 2015)

Citius said:


> Yep, unless you live in the fens, then hills are pretty much inevitable wherever you are. But there are some big, heavy testers out there that produce big power on the flat and reguarly place top 5/10 in flat 10s, 25s or 50s. They'd be lucky to get into the top 50 on most HCs though.



That is not what we are talking about though. We are not asking the OP to become a competitive hill climber as well as a strong TTer. All we are discussing is that hill training can produce good results in improving power which of course can then be utilised in all forms of cycling. The truth is that not many who excel at TTs will also excel at hill climbing as the light body weight of a pure climber is not conducive to that of a good TTer. 

When Bradley Wiggins gave up stage racing last year to focus on the world TT he had to put on another stone to get back to his fastest TT weight. At a more personal level one of my friends that I ride with is 6ft 3 and 13st+. He can set a ferocious pace on the flat that I can barely hang with even when on his wheel, he would certainly make a decent TTer over time. But as you said on the climbs, I often have to soft pedal, or stop and wait for him at the top.

I can link you to someone who does compete at a high level at both if you prefer though.


----------



## Tin Pot (18 Aug 2015)

Citius said:


> Hill work usually puts you in a different position, a different speed, a different gear and a different cadence to riding on the flat. If the aim is flat 10s and 25s, I would focus on creating and maintaining power in the position you will be riding in. Anything else would be less specific and therefore (likely) less effective.



I'd agree with your point on position, as 50000tears said, hills make for good interval training but not tt specific. In my experience, a good training plan is one you'll follow. And for me that means trading off the ideal plan against things I enjoy, to get the perfect plan I'm going to do and enjoy. So I think you're right, but with hills everywhere, and it being fun, do hill work 

That said....

@Cuchilo 
If you can find terrain similar to the intended tt course, get into a tuck for ten minutes race pace (Z4 touching into Z5) then two and a half in recovery (Z1/Z2) and repeat for a session - note that HR will lag a bit. But inbetween those interval sessions you want easy riding in Z2.

Joe Friel has some good training material on this.

I need to look into this kind of training myself for next year, so would be good to hear your practice and progress updates.


----------



## Joshua Plumtree (18 Aug 2015)

Citius said:


> Hill work usually puts you in a different position, a different speed, a different gear and a different cadence to riding on the flat. If the aim is flat 10s and 25s, I would focus on creating and maintaining power in the position you will be riding in. Anything else would be less specific and therefore (likely) less effective.



As I see it, being fast over 10/25 miles requires you to push the biggest gear you can in the highest cadence possible whilst remaining in an aero tuck. Almost impossible to do this whilst hill climbing and the type of adaptions this might encourage are not necesarily those you require for TTing. 
That's not to say that regular hill climbing sessions don't bring other benefits. Particular useful for some kinds of intervals and Vo2 stuff IMO.


----------



## Citius (18 Aug 2015)

50000tears said:


> That is not what we are talking about though. We are not asking the OP to become a competitive hill climber as well as a strong TTer. All we are discussing is that hill training can produce good results in improving power which of course can then be utilised in all forms of cycling. The truth is that not many who excel at TTs will also excel at hill climbing as the light body weight of a pure climber is not conducive to that of a good TTer.



I know the OP is only targeting TTs, which is why I'm suggesting focusing on efforts which produce the best results for TTing, not climbing. Having said that, there are plenty of riders out there who excel at both, at both pro and amateur level. The two aren't mutually exclusive, but that doesn't mean the training shouldn't be specific.


----------



## Cuchilo (18 Aug 2015)

From what i have seen locally the TT season seems to end with hill climbing TT's . I've not noticed hill climbs during the season and i guess there's good reason for that .


----------



## screenman (18 Aug 2015)

Froomie is quite quick in a time trial for somebody who goes up hill well.


----------



## Citius (18 Aug 2015)

screenman said:


> Froomie is quite quick in a time trial for somebody who goes up hill well.



So was Wiggins, so was Lemond, so was Indurain, so was Lance (yes, I know), so were lots of others. As said, the two are not in any way mutually exclusive.


----------



## Cuchilo (22 Aug 2015)

Back on the same 25 mile course in the morning and aiming for under the hour


----------



## Cuchilo (23 Aug 2015)

Stupid bike !


----------



## Cuchilo (24 Aug 2015)

Ok i didn't go under the hour or even get close to it . Got a PB of 1:10:25 though . I rode this one pretty much the same as last time but last time i finished thinking i could have pushed harder . This time i pushed harder but had a nasty head wind that didn't end up being a tail wind on the return leg . 
This time i pushed the highest gear i could and backed off a gear once i saw my speed drop , upped a gear once i started spinning . This got my heart rate down and allowed me to concentrate on breathing rather than spinning faster and gasping for air with a high heart rate .


----------

