Heart Rate and Target Zones (Page 3)
-
No new posts
Moderators: k9car363, alicefoeller | Reply |
|
2004-12-11 6:04 PM in reply to: #89484 |
Expert 644 Evansville, IN | Subject: RE: Heart Rate and Target Zones Zone specific training? I'm base building and doing all my current workouts in zone 1 or 2. My question is whether or not you should stray from your zone for short periods (i.e. hill climbing) or majorly reduce the uphill effort to stay in your current zone? My zone 2 is about 140 - 158. When cycling, it will often go up into the 160's while pulling up a hill. However, at the end of my workout, my average HR is within my zone 2 goal. Do I worry about spikes as long as the HR comes right back down, or do I get off my bike and walk( not really , but you know what I mean)? Somebody please give me some input. Thanks. John |
|
2004-12-12 3:25 PM in reply to: #91543 |
Extreme Veteran 443 Manitoba, Canada | Subject: RE: Heart Rate and Target Zones umbach - 2004-12-11 5:04 PM Zone specific training? I'm base building and doing all my current workouts in zone 1 or 2. My question is whether or not you should stray from your zone for short periods (i.e. hill climbing) or majorly reduce the uphill effort to stay in your current zone? My zone 2 is about 140 - 158. When cycling, it will often go up into the 160's while pulling up a hill. However, at the end of my workout, my average HR is within my zone 2 goal. Do I worry about spikes as long as the HR comes right back down, or do I get off my bike and walk( not really , but you know what I mean)? Somebody please give me some input. Thanks. John My understanding John of base building is that you do NOT go above the zone 1 or 2, not for hills, or wind or anything else. One of the reasons is that the anaerobic system kicks in when your hr goes higher and alters the source of fuel the body is using. According to the Mark Allen article on one of the previous threads (will look for it and add as a link), once you have shut off the aerobic system and gone anaerobic, it takes 7 -9 hours for it to be shut off and switch back to fat-burning, even after your hr is back down (though it’s hard to believe that will occur with only shorts bursts above the 1 or 2 zones...?). The higher hr also triggers the adrenal system to kick in – not what you want in the base building period either. Lol- now, having said that – I know in the snow my hr has gone higher than it should … so this is all theory not pure practice as far as my experience goes! I was asking similar questions a few months ago, and I found consistently information that supports NOT raising the hr above the zones…. much easier said than done! I'd like to hear what others have to say too... |
2004-12-12 4:00 PM in reply to: #89484 |
Extreme Veteran 443 Manitoba, Canada | Subject: RE: Heart Rate and Target Zones Some other discussion on this from a few months ago ... http://beginnertriathlete.com/discussion/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=8877&posts=6 http://beginnertriathlete.com/discussion/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=8886&posts=28 http://beginnertriathlete.com/discussion/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=8894&posts=5
hope they are helpful .
|
2004-12-12 6:49 PM in reply to: #91704 |
Master 2381 Dallas, Texas | Subject: RE: Heart Rate and Target Zones I have to agree with everything Laerka wrote. Especially the part about how hard it can be to maintain your HR in a certain zone. Today I was supposed to cycle in zone 2. The wind was blowing about 15 - 20 mph. Into the headwind my HR spiked above zone 2. With the tailwind, my HR dropped into zone 1. Does it really matter? I'm not sure. I have read the same articles as Laerka and haven't found anything to contridict the theory. |
2004-12-12 9:51 PM in reply to: #89484 |
Expert 644 Evansville, IN | Subject: RE: Heart Rate and Target Zones Thanks for the reinforcement. That is what I have gathered as well, but again it is a bit hard for me to understand since it is such short bursts out of the planned zone. However, I refuse to walk my bike up a hill just to stay in a certain zone. Just can't make myself do it. :-) |
2004-12-12 11:00 PM in reply to: #91805 |
Elite 3498 Chicago | Subject: RE: Heart Rate and Target Zones umbach - 2004-12-12 8:51 PM Thanks for the reinforcement. That is what I have gathered as well, but again it is a bit hard for me to understand since it is such short bursts out of the planned zone. However, I refuse to walk my bike up a hill just to stay in a certain zone. Just can't make myself do it. :-) Can you not go in your lowest-lowest gear and spin? Is the hills too steep to do that? I typically ride my triple and get in the granny gear, which is ample for me to spin up hills. |
|
2004-12-12 11:35 PM in reply to: #89484 |
Expert 644 Evansville, IN | Subject: RE: Heart Rate and Target Zones Actually, Steve, I can go into my "granny gear" but I'm just used to sliding back on the seat and grinding up. It has always served me well for building good climbing. However, I'm having to relearn as I'm becoming more educated on the proper training principles. But thanks to all the wonderful help and tips, I'm livin' and learnin'. |
2004-12-13 9:37 AM in reply to: #89484 |
11 | Subject: RE: Heart Rate and Target Zones remembr, zone 3 is not anaerobic if your zones are set right. So I wouldnt woory too much about it if it were for short periods. You do want to maintain the integrity of your workouts as much as possible. The bigger problem with "zone 3" is your working hard enough that your aerobic systlem isnt becoming forced to be more efficent, but not hard enough to reap the benifits from hard training. So you end up just kind of depleting yourself of glycogen. Ironman athletes will sometime spend some time here in training, but most athletes should commit either way for thier efforts I think. Unless, as pointed out here its a transition effort, or modification in terrain. Steve, no V02 max is for the most part untrainable. |
2004-12-13 9:55 AM in reply to: #91904 |
Not a Coach 11473 Media, PA | Subject: RE: Heart Rate and Target Zones Steve, no V02 max is for the most part untrainable. Hmmm. This is not consistent with what I have heard elsewhere. My impression is that VO2max is correlated with aerobic fitness level and increases with training. Oh, and I do let my HR "drift" if I am running up a hill--as long as the hill is not too long or steep (so my drift is only a few beats and not for very long). On longer, steeper hills I mix in walking and running. This keeps me in the correct zone, but my HR is up and down a lot more than if I just let it outside the zone for a bit. Edited by JohnnyKay 2004-12-13 9:59 AM |
2004-12-13 10:30 AM in reply to: #89484 |
Extreme Veteran 443 Manitoba, Canada | Subject: RE: Heart Rate and Target Zones It is good to hear that others are allowing the hr to 'drift' up for short periods during training sessions. I think I needlessly wasted mental and physical effort on keeping my hr below that big black line of my mahr. Once I relaxed it a bit, my workouts were more enjoyable and hopefully just as beneficial. Just for clarification .. what kind of spikes are people allowing (both time and bpm)? The zone 3 - yes there is alot of information around about it being a dead space for training and to therefore avoid it as a "no benefit" zone. But then again (lol - why is there always a 'then again' or otoh caveat to this stuff???) .. not everyone agrees with this either... |
2004-12-13 10:39 AM in reply to: #91915 |
Not a Coach 11473 Media, PA | Subject: RE: Heart Rate and Target Zones Just as an example, on my 40min run this weekend I was in my zone for about 33min and out for a total of about 7min. This is fairly typical on the course I ran with about 10-15% out of zone (though some of the time was in the last 5 min or so when I kept having it drift even on the flats and had to slow down). Most of the time I go up about 3 beats from my zone (which has a 148 top) for maybe 30sec to a minute doing a hill. I do slow down on hills so the spikes aren't higher. Some of that time my HR is on its way up and some on its way back. I don't know what my max was on Sat. because I had a flukey spike on the monitor of like 223, but it's usually 151-153. |
|
2004-12-13 10:41 AM in reply to: #89484 |
11 | Subject: RE: Heart Rate and Target Zones vo2 max is trainable VERY slightly. Your body fat for example has a large implication it it, relativly speaking. But athletes train to be able to workout at higher percentages of thier vo2 max for longer periods of times. But dont worry, Steve Prefontaine had one in the 70's, Frank Shorter I believe was in the 50's. Both seemed to bae able to make names for themselves. A |
2004-12-13 10:56 AM in reply to: #91918 |
Not a Coach 11473 Media, PA | Subject: RE: Heart Rate and Target Zones FWIW, found this. Factors Affecting VO2maxThere are 6 major factors that affect your aerobic power... 1. Genetics--Genetics is said to play a 20-30% role in VO2max. 2. Your age--After the age of 25 VO2max decreases by 1% a year. The good news is regular physical activity throughout life can offset much of the decline. 3. Training status--Athletic training can alter a person's VO2max as much as 20% depending on their lifestyle and fitness habits. 4. Exercise mode--Measure an athlete's VO2max on a treadmill test, then a cycle test and finally in a swimming pool and the results will all differ significantly. Treadmill running has been shown to produce the highest values. 5. Your gender--Women generally have VO2max values that are 15-30% lower than men's. This takes into account differences in bodyweight. With a straight, like-for-like comparison the difference is even greater. 6. Your body composition--Much of the differences in VO2max between men and women is attributed to body composition. Although there are other biologic differences between the sexes, research suggests VO2max decreases as body fat percent increases. So can you improve your VO2max? In a nutshell aerobic power can improve 6-20% with athletic training. However the larger gains usually come from untrained, sedentary individuals. If you are a regular exerciser and particularly if you consider yourself to be an endurance athlete... Chances are endurance training will only make small improvements in your VO2max. Edited by JohnnyKay 2004-12-13 10:58 AM |
2004-12-13 3:13 PM in reply to: #89484 |
Expert 743 Minnesota | Subject: RE: Heart Rate and Target Zones This thread has some pretty good legs. It has gone farther and been more informative than I could have ever imagined. Thanks for the links Laerka! The method for estimating LT on these links is within 1 or 2 BPM of the LT that I estimated using the method linked by zia_cyclist at http://www.d3multisport.com/articles/determinezones.html.I am willing to bet that the clinical LT test that Steve mentioned would also be pretty close. (Am I right on this Steve?) Some things have become clear to me... Premise: 1. All methods to determine training zones are an estimate. 2. Training zones based upon LT are more beneficial than those based upon Max HR. 3. The methods for determining LT yield results that are within a few BPM of one another. 4. Genetic differences, training, attitude, sleep etc. may cause an individual's LT to vary a few BPM 5. Slipping into zone 3 may not be beneficial, but won't hurt if one is not there too long. Conclusion: Determine LT using one of the three methods discussed or linked to in this thread and don't worry about the possible differences in the results obtained by one method or another. Those differences are not likely to be significant given premises 3,4 and 5. |
2004-12-13 10:46 PM in reply to: #91915 |
Master 2381 Dallas, Texas | Subject: RE: Heart Rate and Target Zones I rode my bike yesterday for about 1.5 hours. The ride was a zone 2 ride. It was a very windy day and I spent about 13 minutes in zone 3. My HR spikes were about 1-4 bpm into zone three. I'm glad to hear that spiking into zone 3 probably doesn't matter. I get so tired of constantly trying to control my HR, especially on windy days. TJ |
2004-12-14 9:45 AM in reply to: #91923 |
Regular 60 | Subject: RE: Heart Rate and Target Zones VO2max is actually quite trainable. The 6-20% figure is in the ballpark. Also remember that VO2 is measured in mL/kg/min. Thus, as you lose weight, your VO2 per given body weight increases. So really, you can see gains over quite some time. At the elite end, there are still gains to be made. A good example is Paula Radcliffe, who was measured in the mid 70's in the late 1990's and has more recently been measured at over 80, which is a pretty impressive jump in an athlete so well trained. Training obviously needs to get much more specific to see this, meaning that the athlete *must* be spending significant time at V02max, or at least the velocity associated with VO2max. There is a good protocol for figuring this out without any lab equiptment but a stopwatch and a track (although, it is a little easier with a GPS or something and you don't need the track). You can also monitor your progress easily in this way. Drop me an e-mail and I'll be glad to share, if anyone is interested. Edited by PhysFarm 2004-12-14 9:48 AM |
|
2004-12-14 9:57 AM in reply to: #90691 |
Regular 60 | Subject: RE: Heart Rate and Target Zones LT has nothing to do with being aerobic or anerobic, although that was the premise of some people for a while, and is why the misunderstanding happens today. Lactate accumulation occurs because the body is switching from a primarily fat-based energy production to glycogen based energy production. It does not have to do with oxygen delivery. *LT* is defined as a bump of 1 mmol/L over exercise baseline. This is the same for anyone. It is just that the speed you are traveling when it happens is different depending on what kind of athlete you are. What you guys are referring to is a combination of OBLA (onset of blood lactate accumulation, or about 4 mmol/L) and MLSS (max lactate steady state, which you can think of as the last stable lactate value). Both OBLA and MLSS are better correlated to what the athlete considers "threshold effort" by feel. Friel's points about everyone having a different level is right on, in terms of MLSS. Phil Edited by PhysFarm 2004-12-14 10:18 AM |
2004-12-14 11:08 AM in reply to: #89679 |
New user 27 Atlanta 'Burbs | Subject: RE: Heart Rate and Target Zones My problem is that I race in Zone 1/2. :-( |
2004-12-14 3:31 PM in reply to: #92290 |
Expert 743 Minnesota | Subject: RE: Heart Rate and Target Zones PhysFarm, Thanks for the reply. PhysFarm - 2004-12-13 9:57 PM LT has nothing to do with being aerobic or anerobic, although that was the premise of some people for a while, and is why the misunderstanding happens today. Lactate accumulation occurs because the body is switching from a primarily fat-based energy production to glycogen based energy production. It does not have to do with oxygen delivery. *LT* is defined as a bump of 1 mmol/L over exercise baseline. This is the same for anyone. It is just that the speed you are traveling when it happens is different depending on what kind of athlete you are. What you guys are referring to is a combination of OBLA (onset of blood lactate accumulation, or about 4 mmol/L) and MLSS (max lactate steady state, which you can think of as the last stable lactate value). Both OBLA and MLSS are better correlated to what the athlete considers "threshold effort" by feel. Friel's points about everyone having a different level is right on, in terms of MLSS. Phil Considering your post... In my reasearch I have found that Phil Maffetone's work appears to be closely correlated to what you have posted. I believe that Maffetone is the original source in the posts that Laerka linked to. In his system, a threshold HR is calculated that closely corresponds with the top of what would be considered a zone 2 workout. Slipping above this HR is considered to be counterproductive because the body switches to burning carbohydrates. Do you concur that one should not rise above this heartrate? Do you have a different method of determining the point at which the body switches from lipid metabolism to using glycogen for fuel? |
2004-12-14 5:09 PM in reply to: #92473 |
Regular 60 | Subject: RE: Heart Rate and Target Zones hey, You can and should train at different intensities depending upon the adaptations you are trying to cause. In terms of training at LT, however, that is really the best option as far as "bang for your buck" goes. For triathlon, it is the way to maximize the most important adaptations that will improve your performance, in other words, you are training your body to work at a higher level before you start burning relatively more glycogen and relatively less fat. Working on sprints, for example, might not be real important. But doing *some* VO2max intervals would, because you increase the pumping capacity of your heart, and since you have now raised your maximal aerobic work capacity, your race pace is now at a lower percentage of your maximum, so you have effectively made your race pace "easier". See what I mean? You shouldn't go nuts doing those kinds of workouts, because it is not the most important factor, but you should still address it. To find the training level this happens at is *a little* tough without actually checking your lactate levels. I don't have a magic way of doing that, I am sorry to say. That is why I try to do a lactate test protocol on all my athletes :^). That being said, it has been shown that "threshold" effort, i.e. the effort you can sustain for about 1 hour (your 40k TT pace on a bike, or 10k pace running) will be very highly correlated with LT. It is actually higher than LT per se, and closer to OBLA and MLSS as you can see from my post above. Once you know these paces, you can base your training on them. Y ou can use heart rate as a gross indicator, i.e. the avg HR for that hour, but you need to remember that HR is sensitive to many things...hydration, sleep, overtraining, illness. That is why pace (or power output, if you have a power tap) is nice. Your pace is *always* your pace, and your power is *always* your power. Thus, you know *exactly* how much work you are doing and do not need to guess why your HR is 5 bpm higher today than yesterday but 2 bpm lower than the day before. Markers like VT are not good. First of all, a real VT is difficult to measure and you need equiptment to do that. Even then, it has been shown that while a measured VT and a measured LT are correlated, this correlation diverges with training, so each becomes a worse indicator of the other as you get better. Some coaches try to guesstimate by looking for the point where you start breathing deeper. Again, that is very subjective. Might work for some, and not for others, and still others may never figure it out completely. Also, VT is not actually due to your blood getting acidic because of lactate, which I have seen people say on various discussion boards. We know this because people with McArdle's disease, who cannot form lactate at all, still have a VT! So, your best option if you don't want to do a blood test is do a functional test...like the hour bike ride or run, and generate your levels from there. If you look up Andrew Coggan's article on training with power (just google it), you will be able to figure out how to do that. Hope that helped. If you have any questions I am glad to share what I know Phil |
|