Heart Rate Zones

[Scott2019]

Hi,

Has anyone had personal experience using heart rate zones training specifically for road cycling.

I would be interested to know if anyone has experienced any significant improvements or 'benefits' to their performance using this training method and what they were specifically, to use this information for some School research.

If so, I would also be interested in what level of road cycling you associate with? (eg recreational or competition)

Thanks

[Alex Simmons/RST]

HR "zones" are not a method of training.

They are simply one way to quantify intensity of effort while training/riding. Intensity of effort is but one of several important factors to consider when training and there are various ways to monitor or measure it, each with pros and cons. HR is OK provided you understand its limitations.

Training methods or plans are what define how hard you should work and with what frequency, duration and recovery in order to achieve particular goals.

There 10 times as many training methods as there are lawyers' opinions.

However there are only a handful of well established (in science) training principles one needs to apply in order to successfully improve fitness (in a manner that is meaningful for the individual). The skill is in determining how to best apply those fundamental principles for each individual.

[Scott2019]

Thanks Alex Simmons/RST

Are you familiar with the Specific Limitations and Advantages of using heart rate to monitor effort and how monitoring effort may help benefit performance by quantifying training load in in order to reduce chances of injury and maximise recovery if that is possible and other uses you may know?

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Thanks Alex Simmons/RST

Are you familiar with the Specific Limitations and Advantages of using heart rate to monitor effort and how monitoring effort may help benefit performance by quantifying training load in in order to reduce chances of injury and maximise recovery if that is possible and other uses you may know?

Yes.

[Alex Simmons/RST]

I'm happy to answer questions but I'm not doing someone's homework for them.

There's been a ton of things written on here and elsewhere on the topic of using HR to guide training. How about doing some basic research/reading first then perhaps come back to ask for clarification on points you are not sure about?

Here's a tip though, using a HR monitor is not much better than not having one and using a watch and your own sense of effort level and fatigue.

[find_bruce]

Hi

[Mod Says] Hi Scott, I have moved your post to the training forum & by quoting your post you will get a notification so you know where it has gone[/Mod]

[madmacca]

In terms of limitations, off the top of my head, I can think of several:

* cardiac drift
* unknown or incorrect maxHR's
* susceptible to non-training factors (eg. heat, fatigue, lack of sleep, illness).
* a measure of input only, not a measure of output

That said, HR is cheap, continuous and non-invasive, which can't be said of most other measures of cycling performance.

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Just for clarification (the other stuff is fine)...

* a measure of input only, not a measure of output

HR is neither an input or an output measure. It is a simply a measure of one physiological response to stimuli, be it physical or mental.

That said, HR is cheap, continuous and non-invasive, which can't be said of most other measures of cycling performance.

Perceived exertion is even cheaper (i.e. free), continuous and non-invasive. Not many on bike measurement devices are invasive, that's mostly for lab based tests, e.g. blood lactate measurement or measurement of gas exchange.

That said, neither HR nor perceived exertion (nor BL measurements or gas exchange measurements) are measures of cycling performance. They are indicators of intensity of effort.

To measure performance you need to measure power output.

[Alex Simmons/RST]

to add to the list, other limitations of HR include:
- it's a lag indicator (IOW like many physiological responses to changes in exercise intensity such as blood lactate concentration, hormonal responses, it operates with a half-life response time in the order of about a minute)
- as such it's not overly helpful when assessing the highly and rapidly variable power output demands common in cycling, nor when performing short duration interval work
- HR also loses its utility as intensity increases, in particular when effort attains and/or is greater than what we might commonly refer to as "threshold". HR is effectively useless for guiding supra-threshold efforts
- HR has significant inter individual variability, and intra day variability for each individual

That said HR can be used as a general guide to intensity of general aerobic effort, which typically forms the bulk of training for many endurance athletes. It is also useful for those exercising and for whom their medical advice is not to exceed a set HR level (e.g. they have some form of cardiac disease or injury).

[Scott2019]

.

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Apologies for being blunt. Research can be like that.

Your original post indicated naivety on the topic, which is a bit surprising given the amount of research you say you've done. Perhaps your sources were not of good quality, and that would not be surprising because there is a lot of nonsense / misinformation written about HR and training.

So I'll repeat myself: HR zones are not a training method.
To use an analogy - a ruler is not method of carpentry either.

The fundamental false premise in your original question is what makes responding difficult.

What I am bluntly attempting to get to is to uncover what it is you are really looking to understand?

For your reference, I am a coach and have long years of experience working with riders at all levels from professionals to local club amateurs as well as people recovering from serious illness and injury. Some of those I work with are currently or have been national champions and/or world record holders.

I also have personal experience of monitoring HR during training.

[Derny Driver]

Scott as part of your research I suggest you research who Alex is.
Pretty lucky if you manage to stumble upon a world authority on your subject on an internet forum. And he takes the time to reply to you.

[Scott2019]

Apologies for being blunt. Research can be like that.

Your original post indicated naivety on the topic, which is a bit surprising given the amount of research you say you've done. Perhaps your sources were not of good quality, and that would not be surprising because there is a lot of nonsense / misinformation written about HR and training.

So I'll repeat myself: HR zones are not a training method.
To use an analogy - a ruler is not method of carpentry either.

The fundamental false premise in your original question is what makes responding difficult.

What I am bluntly attempting to get to is to uncover what it is you are really looking to understand?

For your reference, I am a coach and have long years of experience working with riders at all levels from professionals to local club amateurs as well as people recovering from serious illness and injury. Some of those I work with are currently or have been national champions and/or world record holders.

I also have personal experience of monitoring HR during training.

[g-boaf]

Hi,

Has anyone had personal experience using heart rate zones training specifically for road cycling.

I would be interested to know if anyone has experienced any significant improvements or 'benefits' to their performance using this training method and what they were specifically, to use this information for some School research.

If so, I would also be interested in what level of road cycling you associate with? (eg recreational or competition)

Thanks

Watching the heart rate is great, but it is nice to support it with other metrics so you can get a clearer picture. It's better than nothing, but it's variable. Maybe you'd use it to judge your efforts so you don't blow up.

The others above are both very good coaches and you should listen to them.

[mtb1011]

Hi,

Has anyone had personal experience using heart rate zones training specifically for road cycling.

I would be interested to know if anyone has experienced any significant improvements or 'benefits' to their performance using this training method and what they were specifically, to use this information for some School research.

If so, I would also be interested in what level of road cycling you associate with? (eg recreational or competition)

Thanks

Research suggests you can't ride without a heart, so it does play a role in training and overall performance on a bike for example. if you take away a power meter the next best indicator would be your heart rate and how it relates to energy and effort, performance etc.

so if you were to ride your bike up a hill, your heart rate would increase in beats per minute, up to a point where it goes past what one would call the endurance zone and you would be at a threshold zone, that's the limit of your capacity to power your bike forward without inducing too much fatigue and/or flooding your blood stream with the by product of muscle contraction lactic acid. of course the fitter you are the more you could ride within this zone, now push a little harder and you go into the upper zone which has limits on how long you can sustain yourself before you completely decline performance output wise. otherwise known as the anaerobic zone (without oxygen).

so yes if you monitored your heart rate on a ride that would have a direct relationship to your performance outputs, fatigue accumulation etc. There would be a point where a high heart rate would eventually cause you to suffer a performance decline. now if you are a smart cookie you would wear your heart rate monitor and watch your heart rate as it relates to efforts. the result being you can go on for longer at a sustained pace in particular zones.

its probably best demonstrated by running, see how long you can run in the endurance zone vs the anaerobic zone. anaerobic offers short high bursts of power where endurance offers less power for a longer time. now in between that is the sweet spot of power without too much fatigue and that's the zone you want to be in if aiming for optimal power outputs.

[Derny Driver]

so yes if you monitored your heart rate on a ride that would have a direct relationship to your performance outputs, fatigue accumulation etc. There would be a point where a high heart rate would eventually cause you to suffer a performance decline. now if you are a smart cookie..

Alex
Calling Alex
ALEX
Are you there?
I feel you may have left the thread ....

[Alex Simmons/RST]

This you did when I said heart rate zones was training method. I am happy you critiqued this, it allows me to keep track of which sources have been supported or refuted by others. You are not the first to state that it is not a training method and this is helpful for my research as it supports the opinions I have also come across in my research about the source. Once it is refuted by many opinions I can write the source off as not of credible value.

Let me be clear. What I stated was not an opinion.

Whether or not published research, articles or statements about a topic are credible isn't a matter of opinion in any case. Rather it is evidence and logical reasoning that determining their validity or otherwise. Opinions aren't relevant.

[Alex Simmons/RST]

if you take away a power meter the next best indicator would be your heart rate and how it relates to energy and effort, performance etc.

For Scott's benefit, I'd say this is an example of an opinion. Just some other clarifications - hope you don't mind

so if you were to ride your bike up a hill, your heart rate would increase in beats per minute, up to a point where it goes past what one would call the endurance zone and you would be at a threshold zone, that's the limit of your capacity to power your bike forward without inducing too much fatigue and/or flooding your blood stream with the by product of muscle contraction lactic acid.

You will pass the "endurance zone" and/or "threshold" well before your HR suggests you have.

Our blood doesn't flood with lactic acid. The concentration of lactate in blood does increase however. Which is good because blood lactate is an important metabolic source of energy and not a cause of fatigue.

of course the fitter you are the more you could ride within this zone,

Sort of, obviously endurance increases with fitness, but the main outcome of increased aerobic fitness is the power or pace you can sustain rises.

now push a little harder and you go into the upper zone which has limits on how long you can sustain yourself before you completely decline performance output wise. otherwise known as the anaerobic zone (without oxygen).

Performance become unsustainable well before you hit the "anaerobic zone". What happens when exercising at an intensity above "threshold" is the energy demand is increasingly being met by various metabolic processes, some of which are capacity limited. Even so when going this hard the energy demand is still mostly supplied via aerobic metabolism (aerobic glycolysis mostly).

The causes of fatigue are multifactoral and complex.

so yes if you monitored your heart rate on a ride that would have a direct relationship to your performance outputs, fatigue accumulation etc. There would be a point where a high heart rate would eventually cause you to suffer a performance decline. now if you are a smart cookie you would wear your heart rate monitor and watch your heart rate as it relates to efforts. the result being you can go on for longer at a sustained pace in particular zones.

For general aerobic activity with little variation in effort such as your running example, this is reasonable, although one does still to take care when interpreting HR data - it can be quite misleading. It definitely starts to break down the more variable the effort is for all the reasons already mentioned upthread.

Use of HR for monitoring sub-threshold quasi-steady state endurance efforts is fine. There will be some day to day variability in HR response but overall it's OK. But it's not really necessary - perceived exertion is also a good indicator with similar limitations to HR, except one - it's free.

[Scott2019]

if you take away a power meter the next best indicator would be your heart rate and how it relates to energy and effort, performance etc.

For Scott's benefit, I'd say this is an example of an opinion. Just some other clarifications - hope you don't mind

so if you were to ride your bike up a hill, your heart rate would increase in beats per minute, up to a point where it goes past what one would call the endurance zone and you would be at a threshold zone, that's the limit of your capacity to power your bike forward without inducing too much fatigue and/or flooding your blood stream with the by product of muscle contraction lactic acid.

You will pass the "endurance zone" and/or "threshold" well before your HR suggests you have.

Our blood doesn't flood with lactic acid. The concentration of lactate in blood does increase however. Which is good because blood lactate is an important metabolic source of energy and not a cause of fatigue.

of course the fitter you are the more you could ride within this zone,

Sort of, obviously endurance increases with fitness, but the main outcome of increased aerobic fitness is the power or pace you can sustain rises.

now push a little harder and you go into the upper zone which has limits on how long you can sustain yourself before you completely decline performance output wise. otherwise known as the anaerobic zone (without oxygen).

Performance become unsustainable well before you hit the "anaerobic zone". What happens when exercising at an intensity above "threshold" is the energy demand is increasingly being met by various metabolic processes, some of which are capacity limited. Even so when going this hard the energy demand is still mostly supplied via aerobic metabolism (aerobic glycolysis mostly).

The causes of fatigue are multifactoral and complex.

so yes if you monitored your heart rate on a ride that would have a direct relationship to your performance outputs, fatigue accumulation etc. There would be a point where a high heart rate would eventually cause you to suffer a performance decline. now if you are a smart cookie you would wear your heart rate monitor and watch your heart rate as it relates to efforts. the result being you can go on for longer at a sustained pace in particular zones.

For general aerobic activity with little variation in effort such as your running example, this is reasonable, although one does still to take care when interpreting HR data - it can be quite misleading. It definitely starts to break down the more variable the effort is for all the reasons already mentioned upthread.

Use of HR for monitoring sub-threshold quasi-steady state endurance efforts is fine. There will be some day to day variability in HR response but overall it's OK. But it's not really necessary - perceived exertion is also a good indicator with similar limitations to HR, except one - it's free.

Thanks Alex

Appreciate the clarifications

[mikesbytes]

Scott, what do you want to achieve with your training?

[find_bruce]

For general aerobic activity with little variation in effort such as your running example, this is reasonable, although one does still to take care when interpreting HR data - it can be quite misleading. It definitely starts to break down the more variable the effort is for all the reasons already mentioned upthread.

Use of HR for monitoring sub-threshold quasi-steady state endurance efforts is fine. There will be some day to day variability in HR response but overall it's OK. But it's not really necessary - perceived exertion is also a good indicator with similar limitations to HR, except one - it's free.

Curious as to your thoughts about heart rate variability as a measure of recovery - I saw Follow your heart to better recovery on cycling tips & I must say it sounds to me like so many other fad theories - heart rate zones, fat burning rides & so much more - long on anecdote & use by athletes, low on scientific principle.

[Alex Simmons/RST]

I must say it sounds to me like so many other fad theories - heart rate zones, fat burning rides & so much more - long on anecdote & use by athletes, low on scientific principle.

Hard to disagree. I'm not ruling it out though as there is some data to suggest it may have potential as a guide for recovery. Not however as an indicator of fitness.

But the evidence is thin. When I look at the studies linked in that CT item I'm not interpreting them as positively as the author does. And one of them is by a HRV measurement business. That in itself is not a reason to discard the report but it does mean one needs to be extra cautious, and let's see some replica studies.

But really is it adding anything useful to what you will already know from power, perceived exertion, how you slept, how you feel, what other life stresses you are experiencing and already knowing that you've hard a hard or an easy day? Perhaps. Perhaps not.

[CycloVelo]

But really is it adding anything useful to what you will already know from power, perceived exertion, how you slept, how you feel, what other life stresses you are experiencing and already knowing that you've hard a hard or an easy day? Perhaps. Perhaps not.

I only offer that it may be a useful heuristic (i.e. convenient for people who already have too many things on their minds) to just look at a number on the screen than to do a multivariate analysis on just how hard they can go on the bike at any one time