Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 26 to 48 of 48

Thread: Zone 3 Training

  1. #26
    Pay heed people
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    544
    Quote Originally Posted by Mengtian View Post
    Do you see a cardiologist for a specific reason? I am no doctor or cardiologist but I have been an endurance athlete for 35 years. What you are saying is to me (and others) very unusual. Can you clarify why you see a cardiologist? That may answer some questions

    Sure - thanks.

    So, several years ago, the doctor noticed (forgive me if I get the terminology wrong) Q waves in my EKG as he was monitoring me for a slight arrhythmia. Since then, I've done stress tests at regular intervals (3-5 years). My HR has always been a bit of a joke in the office since it's the highest he had ever seen. That being said, I lived a very sedentary life for a long time. After I got into cycling a few years ago, he said my heart rate was likely to smooth out since it was going to get more conditioning.

    At the start of seasons past (when I would take winters off), I would find that my HR would return to my insane rates. Towards the end of the season, it would even out and get much lower.

    My 237 numbers aren't from a Garmin or Polar. They're from the stress tests. Now that I'm riding harder and more, I get more frequent checkups.

    FWIW, my brother has the exact same issues. He's a Cat 3 in the midwest.

  2. #27
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    1,842
    Quote Originally Posted by ibericb View Post
    All of the points cited as typical or normal are for large groups or pools of people. There are always outliers, and the OP may just be one.

    If you have data or facts, please bring 'em. Otherwise your points would appear largely baseless.
    So now a 237 hr is merely an outlier? That's ridiculous. Now maybe he has tachycardia? That might be a real issue. But even if that were the case, he still isn't actually dropping from 237 to 200 due to "fitness".

    Or, maybe he's having data spikes (a known problem with hrms!)

    Are you wanting my data of errant data points? Or data on all of the issues with hr variance (which I've given a few already)?

    Or are you wanting a lesson on human anatomy and the heart;s adaptations to stress and how it would potentially manifest those adaptations with higher stroke volume and all?

    I feel like you're just being pedantic and arguing for the sake of arguing at this point.

    Nothing I've said is baseless and your own posts agree with them (except regarding the fruitlessness of training with hr). You're just stretching your own facts all the way to the point of fiction.

  3. #28
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    1,842
    Quote Originally Posted by Corenfa View Post
    Sure - thanks.

    So, several years ago, the doctor noticed (forgive me if I get the terminology wrong) Q waves in my EKG as he was monitoring me for a slight arrhythmia. .

    So not even an outlier. A medical condition.

    Boom.

  4. #29
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: PBL450's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    3,619
    Quote Originally Posted by Drew Eckhardt View Post
    Monday - 10 minute intervals as hard as I can sustain which works out to about 110% of FTP for me. That seems to work and in retrospect matches Seiler's studies - his intervals are as hard as sustainable, he opined on slowtwitch.com the sweet spot is 7-10 minutes, and his published study showed bigger power improvements at VO2max/LT4 using 4x8 versus 4x4 or 4x16. Rest between intervals decreasing with fitness - 10 minutes starting, 5 minutes, 4 minutes. Seiler used 2 minutes RBI in his studies. Enough zone 2 getting to and from someplace outdoors suitable. Except every second week of each mesocycle I skip that in favor of an FTP test plus another ten or twenty minutes past threshold.

    Tuesday - shorter endurance ride, 1.5-2 hours, high heart rate zone 2 which matches subjective descriptions of my aerobic threshold, that varies with training from high Coggan/Friel zone 1 to high zone 2. Could reach low Z3.

    Wednesday - recovery ride, 1.5-2 hours. Z1. There isn't anything left in my legs and I feel happier riding than not.

    Thursday - another short endurance ride switching to a not polarized Z4 ride. 1:15 - 1:30 at 95% of FTP.

    Friday - recovery ride following a threshold Thursday, short endurance otherwise.

    Saturday - longer endurance ride. 3-4 hours.

    Sunday - I don't ride Sundays.

    Plus an easy 30 miles weekly bicycle commuting Z1.

    One rest week in four. Endurance rides replacing Friel/Coggan Z4/Z5. No time increase. Stress balance going positive.

    I broke my collarbone in June, missed three weeks of any riding, and 1:15 six days a week is where my patience ends for trainer rides so I'm back to where I was at for power and volume in March.
    Thank you! I appreciate your sharing and the specificity. This is what I was looking to see. Somehow it makes it more real than a study. Much appreciated!!!
    To date, philosophers have merely interpreted the world in various ways. The point however is to change it.

  5. #30
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: ibericb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    4,578
    Quote Originally Posted by pedalbiker View Post
    So now a 237 hr is merely an outlier? That's ridiculous. Now maybe he has tachycardia? That might be a real issue. But even if that were the case, he still isn't actually dropping from 237 to 200 due to "fitness".

    Or, maybe he's having data spikes (a known problem with hrms!)

    Are you wanting my data of errant data points? Or data on all of the issues with hr variance (which I've given a few already)?

    Or are you wanting a lesson on human anatomy and the heart;s adaptations to stress and how it would potentially manifest those adaptations with higher stroke volume and all?

    I feel like you're just being pedantic and arguing for the sake of arguing at this point.

    Nothing I've said is baseless and your own posts agree with them (except regarding the fruitlessness of training with hr). You're just stretching your own facts all the way to the point of fiction.
    The OP addressed your point about the data source and the possibility of data spike. Sorry, but you're wrong.

    Your opinions and beliefs are noted. I prefer some credible facts and data. You seem to have none.

    You can spare me your version of exercise physiology. I suspect I am already well informed relative to anything you would proffer

    A point worth clarifying in this discussion for all is terminology - specifically, maximum heart rate. Depending on who's using the term it can mean a couple of different things. Most physiologists today use the therm to mean an absolute genetic maximum, not dependent on the one the mode of stress (running, cycling, swimming, etc.). Apart from that the term peak heart rate is also used to describe a maximum that is reached under a particular stress (e.g., cycling). Following that norm, then the true maximum heart rate should not vary with training (stress adaptation), but the peak heart rate can. That variation in peak heart rate (not true maximum heart rate) appears to be what the OP has described and has been determined via medically supervised stress tests.
    "When man invented the bicycle he reached the peak of his attainments."
    -Elizabeth Howard West

    Never use your face as a brake pad.
    -Jake Watson

  6. #31
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    1,842
    Quote Originally Posted by ibericb View Post
    The OP addressed your point about the data source and the possibility of data spike. Sorry, but you're wrong.

    Your opinions and beliefs are noted. I prefer some credible facts and data. You seem to have none.

    You can spare me your version of exercise physiology. I suspect I am already well informed relative to anything you would proffer

    A point worth clarifying in this discussion for all is terminology - specifically, maximum heart rate. Depending on who's using the term it can mean a couple of different things. Most physiologists today use the therm to mean an absolute genetic maximum, not dependent on the one the mode of stress (running, cycling, swimming, etc.). Apart from that the term peak heart rate is also used to describe a maximum that is reached under a particular stress (e.g., cycling). Following that norm, then the true maximum heart rate should not vary with training (stress adaptation), but the peak heart rate can. That variation in peak heart rate (not true maximum heart rate) appears to be what the OP has described and has been determined via medically supervised stress tests.
    Yes, he posted that while I was posting my post. So one of the multiple explanations I posited was wrong, but I was not wrong about THE issue with hrms (and gps and pms, etc) and data spikes and medical issues like tachycardia as being possible explanations So be a little more honest in your word choice, please.

    Do you not see the irony in the fact that your "facts" already match what I've posted? Read a little. Go back and read what you wrote and instead of the mental gymnastics about outliers, consider what you're saying.

    And your last paragraph so wonderfully illustrates the point I've been hashing out all along. The op is trying to base training zones off of this gargantuan amount of hr b.s.

    Is that not lost on you? Surely I'm beating a dead horse back to death again, but if this entire thread doesn't address all of the issues with hr and put it on a pedestal for you to step back and consider, then nothing will.

    Wow!

  7. #32
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: ibericb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    4,578
    When you bring some meaningful facts, and a deeper understanding, I'm all ears.
    "When man invented the bicycle he reached the peak of his attainments."
    -Elizabeth Howard West

    Never use your face as a brake pad.
    -Jake Watson

  8. #33
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    1,842
    Quote Originally Posted by ibericb View Post
    When you bring some meaningful facts, and a deeper understanding, I'm all ears.
    You repeating that over and over merely illustrates the fact that you have nothing more to contribute and you have nothing left to argue about. And me repeating the same things over and over again is just tiresome.

    I've already asked you what facts you want and you just balked at the question. So it seems that you want to believe in outliers and have me buy into that as well as an explanation for this. The problem is that there are outliers and then there are other things. This is one of those other things. And the OP said as much.

    So in all seriousness, what exactly is it that you want again? Quit peddling your quips about facts and all and address actual points.

  9. #34
    Pay heed people
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    544
    Quote Originally Posted by pedalbiker View Post
    You repeating that over and over merely illustrates the fact that you have nothing more to contribute and you have nothing left to argue about. And me repeating the same things over and over again is just tiresome.
    Irony.

    Just. Irony.

  10. #35
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    1,842
    Quote Originally Posted by Corenfa View Post
    Irony.

    Just. Irony.
    Except I actually address specific things, and he just throws up the same line over and over again.


    Anyway, my only question to you is...

    How's that hr training plan coming along?

    Yikes.

  11. #36
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: PBL450's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    3,619
    Quote Originally Posted by pedalbiker View Post
    Just because they don't have a more accurate means of measuring workload doesn't mean that they couldn't measure training more optimally with something other than hr (none of that is to say they could or would train more optimally, because at that level... yeah, they're probably doing just about all they can do, regardless of how it's measured).

    Why are you going on about other sports, anyway? Absolutely massive strawman you're creating, there.

    HR doesn't hold a candle to power based training for umteen amounts of reasons.

    Same thing with running, which is why everyone (good) uses pace!
    HRM is a tool. Used properly it is a great training tool. No straw man going on there?? Other athletes use HR and achieve great results and build highly effective training plans. Power is available (uniquely) to cyclists and it is can be a valuable metric. But it is a tool just like HR. Given that its application is sport specific, its value should be viewed with a degree research suspicion when being compared to HR which is used in a multitude of applications. No straw man going on... Just solid validity and reliability questions? I certainly understand your complete commitment to power meter superiority, you probably paid a serious price for the device. That would clearly make you biased toward a perceived perfection in that modality. That's human nature. Otherwise you are an asshat to spend that kind of money without certainties or guarantees of absolute advantages... Bottom line? You bring nothing at all to make your point but gasbag posts devoid of any supportive data.
    To date, philosophers have merely interpreted the world in various ways. The point however is to change it.

  12. #37
    Pay heed people
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    544
    Quote Originally Posted by pedalbiker View Post
    Except I actually address specific things, and he just throws up the same line over and over again.


    Anyway, my only question to you is...

    How's that hr training plan coming along?

    Yikes.
    Actually, pretty good. Thanks.

  13. #38
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    1,842
    Quote Originally Posted by PBL450 View Post
    HRM is a tool. Used properly it is a great training tool. No straw man going on there?? Other athletes use HR and achieve great results and build highly effective training plans. Power is available (uniquely) to cyclists and it is can be a valuable metric. But it is a tool just like HR. Given that its application is sport specific, its value should be viewed with a degree research suspicion when being compared to HR which is used in a multitude of applications. No straw man going on... Just solid validity and reliability questions? I certainly understand your complete commitment to power meter superiority, you probably paid a serious price for the device. That would clearly make you biased toward a perceived perfection in that modality. That's human nature. Otherwise you are an asshat to spend that kind of money without certainties or guarantees of absolute advantages... Bottom line? You bring nothing at all to make your point but gasbag posts devoid of any supportive data.
    Question: if you have one training tool at your disposal, a hrm or a powermeter, which one would you choose and why?

    Because I feel that the point I'm making is being missed. And if that's the case, then I'm apparently communicating it badly.

    So seeing as we have the ability to use both "tools", why is one better than another?

    I used hr training (purchasing 4-5 different hrms over that time period) for six or seven years, moving from a cat 5 to a cat 1 early on in that time period. Plus I got two of my powermeters for free and have only used them for three years (not moving past a Cat 1 ). So if anything, I'm much more heavily invested in hr training.

    As for the gasbag bit, has anything I've said about the issues with hr training been false or misleading in any way? Can you address the hr variance that I've mentioned multiple times?

    In all seriousness, please do so. It seems you and iberich keep trying to paint me as an uneducated, inexperienced charlatan who makes vacuous posts because I'm a vehement anti-heart-rate-ite.

    But throughout this entire thread, no one has actually refuted any of the hr shortcomings that I have asserted. Why is that?

  14. #39
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    1,842
    Quote Originally Posted by Corenfa View Post
    Actually, pretty good. Thanks.
    Then this thread hasn't been a monumental waste of time/dick waving contest.

    See, all is good and well, Corenfa. You'll be back to snagging KOMs from wanker cheaters in no time.

  15. #40
    Pay heed people
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    544
    Quote Originally Posted by pedalbiker View Post
    Then this thread hasn't been a monumental waste of time/dick waving contest.

    See, all is good and well, Corenfa. You'll be back to snagging KOMs from wanker cheaters in no time.
    Gee thanks. I'm really glad you're here to educate all of us on how we aren't quite able to bask in your awesomeness. I really do hope that, one day, you win the Internet. You're well on your way.

  16. #41
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    1,842
    Quote Originally Posted by Corenfa View Post
    Gee thanks. I'm really glad you're here to educate all of us on how we aren't quite able to bask in your awesomeness. I really do hope that, one day, you win the Internet. You're well on your way.
    On the contrary, bud, I don't want you to bask in my awesomeness. I want you to be awesome yourself. A rising tide and all...

    Besides, I won the internet a long time ago. Ever debated religion? Ha. Makes this stuff look like child's play.

    Edited to add italics in case corenfa still thinks I'm being serious.
    Last edited by pedalbiker; 09-07-2015 at 06:19 PM.

  17. #42
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: ibericb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    4,578
    Quote Originally Posted by pedalbiker View Post
    Question: if you have one training tool at your disposal, a hrm or a powermeter, which one would you choose and why?
    That would depend entirely on the objectives for training, and the knowledge or support for using either. Both are useful, and both have their merits as well as their limitations and problems. Neither is perfect or a complete answer in itself. They tell you different things, both of which are insightful and useful for training.

    Because I feel that the point I'm making is being missed. And if that's the case, then I'm apparently communicating it badly.

    So seeing as we have the ability to use both "tools", why is one better than another?
    Research efforts to determine the better choice have found that neither is superior, they are just different. As I noted in my first post in this thread, the best combination (most complete and comprehensive) is to use both together (which is exactly what top elite competitive cyclists are doing). But that requires some depth of understanding that seems to elude most unsupported or amateur users. In that sense a power meter seems to be the easier of the two to use. That doesn't make it better.

    But throughout this entire thread, no one has actually refuted any of the hr shortcomings that I have asserted. Why is that?
    No, not at all. In fact they've been well recognized long before you pointed them out. But you've used those shortcoming to cast HRM's as useless. Further, you have ignored completely the weaknesses and shortcomings of power meters, leaving a very one-sided view. What's been refuted are not the shortcomings, but rather the dismissive conclusions you've cast about HRM's broadly, which is misguided.
    "When man invented the bicycle he reached the peak of his attainments."
    -Elizabeth Howard West

    Never use your face as a brake pad.
    -Jake Watson

  18. #43
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    1,842
    Quote Originally Posted by ibericb View Post



    No, not at all. In fact they've been well recognized long before you pointed them out. But you've used those shortcoming to cast HRM's as useless. Further, you have ignored completely the weaknesses and shortcomings of power meters, leaving a very one-sided view. What's been refuted are not the shortcomings, but rather the dismissive conclusions you've cast about HRM's broadly, which is misguided.
    Okay, iberich!

    I get it now and my initial concern about communicating my points badly has been validated. So thank you for that.

    I do not actually think hrms are useless even though I may have come across as believing that initially. If a power meter is not available, then I would certainly advocate their use. I do, however, feel they are inferior for a myriad of reasons and while they may give useful information, they give a physiological reaction that will differ under a number of circumstances and must be accounted for.

    And while you and I obviously differ in our opinions of their usefulness, I do not wish to opine that they are entirely useless.

    Though again, I don't think many top elite cyclists are using both. I don't see a lot of pros using them (though to be sure, there are some). And I certainly don't see elite runners using them. And I still truly believe hr training will fall by the wayside in a few more years, just has it has steadily decreased in the last decade in favor of power training.

    Anyway, good talk.

  19. #44
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: ibericb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    4,578
    Maybe HRM's will fall by the wayside in a few years. I'm certainly not clairvoyant, but I tend to think that instead what we will see are more sophisticated training systems (algorithms) that combine both and are easy for the amateur to use.
    "When man invented the bicycle he reached the peak of his attainments."
    -Elizabeth Howard West

    Never use your face as a brake pad.
    -Jake Watson

  20. #45
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    2,113
    Quote Originally Posted by Drew Eckhardt View Post
    Thursday - another short endurance ride switching to a not polarized Z4 ride. 1:15 - 1:30 at 95% of FTP.
    What is a non-polarized Z4 ride, specifically?
    And what makes it non-polarized, if it isn't covered in the above.
    BANNED

  21. #46
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    1,658
    Quote Originally Posted by duriel View Post
    What is a non-polarized Z4 ride, specifically?
    And what makes it non-polarized, if it isn't covered in the above.
    Polarized training calls for 80% of sessions below your aerobic threshold (which is probably somewhere in Friel's Z2) and 20% above your anaerobic threshold (100% of FTP, lactate threshold heart rate, 4mmol/L lactate).

    95% of FTP is neither and arguably non-polarized.

    That's polarized Z2 which is too easily confused with Z2 endurance ride among people used to 5-zone systems. It's Z4 in Friel and Coggan's systems which are most popular among cyclists.

  22. #47
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    2,113
    All of those zones are confusing. You should standardize them.

    OK, thanks, so he could have just left the 'non-polarized' adjective out of the sentance with the use of 'Z4' . I was wondering how you would polarize that specific zone. I think it made it more confusing.
    BANNED

  23. #48
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: ibericb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    4,578
    Quote Originally Posted by duriel View Post
    All of those zones are confusing. You should standardize them.

    OK, thanks, so he could have just left the 'non-polarized' adjective out of the sentance with the use of 'Z4' . I was wondering how you would polarize that specific zone. I think it made it more confusing.
    The problem with "zones" is that there are about 4 variations of diving the range depending on who's doing the dividing. While Coggan, Friel, et al are the most typical is the U.S., they are NOT universal.

    As soon as any "zone 4" is mentioned it's a pretty sure bet that it will be a departure from Seiler's polarized training model.
    "When man invented the bicycle he reached the peak of his attainments."
    -Elizabeth Howard West

    Never use your face as a brake pad.
    -Jake Watson

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Similar Threads

  1. Zone training
    By OWSI in forum Beginner's Corner
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 09-02-2013, 01:30 PM
  2. Replies: 17
    Last Post: 11-11-2009, 09:52 PM
  3. Training In Your Anaerobic Zone
    By MaddSkillz in forum Racing, Training, Nutrition, Triathlons
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 10-02-2009, 06:13 PM
  4. Zone training
    By ravenmore in forum Racing, Training, Nutrition, Triathlons
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 04-04-2006, 10:27 AM
  5. Zone training
    By ravenmore in forum General Cycling Discussion
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 04-04-2006, 04:20 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •