So this is improved now, and next version of app will have even bigger improvement.
I assume everyone here is doing some version of base training or Seilfer/Maffetone influenced endurance work with polarized/pyramidal, etc…
How are you guys identifying your target heart rate?
I’ve read that 75% of peak HR is a fairly conservative estimate of LT1. Maffetone has his formula that Ratz identified earlier in thread. Alex gave feedback about the talk test.
Seiler talks about heart rate reserve and gave the graphic below in one of his Youtube videos:
Personally, I’ve been targeting 125 BPM. This is about 68% HR peak or 55% of heart rate reserve.
Do you like the HR feature better than the Coach Jack Z2 rides like Collywobbles/Fard/Lollygag?
Dave
Excellent!!! Excellent!!!
I hope others respond. I am also at 68%. I think for anyone that has been consistent for a few years and especially if they are doing 3 hour + rides on regular basis then 75% might be closer to accurate but I also think there is likely genetics or other factors involved, according to Maffetone obviously your heath and consistency are big factors. As we get closer to 65 years old his formula becomes less accurate.
Since I am just returning to a life of high consistency training (on a roll now and most of my life I have been decent… 
) I feel that 68% or my MAF calc is good. I also had a Humon SMO2 sensor that sees a consistent deflection point right around 68% (I have not tested lately but I should try it even though the company is out of business).
I think more fun is highly individual. For most people 68% of HR feels a bit boring and a little more intensity is “fun,” but if you become very fat adapted and you can do Zone 3 power with Z2 power, then HR training can be extra fun. But really I would love to hear other peoples opinions here but since I am talking more theory than personal experience as I have never made this exact comparison for an extended period of time. For many of us fun also comes from doing what we feel is the smartest training or most efficient. I like the challenge of trying to run at 68% for example but that’s a very different pleasure than trying to run upper z2 or lower z3 pace.
I use MAF formula, not because I’m an absolute believer of MAF, but because it just seems to make sense in my case. For me MAF formula is 180-59+5=126bpm.
I do use that value as a max HR cap for aerobic work in cycling, not as a target. I used to target 120-122bpm with power based ERG workouts where I increased/decreased power by a couple % according to the form of the day.
To give you a full idea, my HRmax is 170 and my rHR is 52. LTHR is about 156bpm.
This winter I want to try out what Ratz described in one of his posts. Alternate between Low and High aerobic zone with targets 110bpm and 120bpm while using the HR controlled workouts on TrainerDay app. And I will probably also incorporate the cadence changes he proposes. Intensity session (just one per week) will be gradually adapted from Tempo - Sweetspot - Threshold - Over-Under. Nothing higher then that. I’ll get my anaerobic triggers at the start of the new season when going outdoor again with group rides.
As background info: I don’t race and my 3 yearly major events are long events, 8hr+ in the saddle, 230-260km.
While using the 126bpm cap for HR, I consciously payed attention to some other points which led me to believe that this cap should be fairly accurate in my case. Those other factors are:
-
RPE
-
Breathing comfort level while strictly nose breathing
-
Evaluating Resprate post ride and look for slope changes in that curve while doing a AeT step test
-
Same for RR/A1, check for slope curve change
The conclusion from the above was that the three first points resulted in a value between 125 and 128. Really close to the MAF formula value.
RR/A1 seems to give a slightly higher result of 133, but when riding at 130BPM, the nose breathing becomes ‘unnatural’ and forced.
When it comes to running, the feeling is different. I can’t comfortably run and nose breath more then 30-40min at 120bpm. For running, the comfort level occurs at a 5-6 bpm lower HR. I don’t know why this is different, but I just feel much better when running around 115-118 bpm. For that reason, my HR cap for slow runs is set 120 and target 115bpm.
It may have to do with the fact that I only started running about 3 years ago while I have been consistently cycling for almost 18 years. My running technique is still very poor, balance is really bad on trails, cadende is rather low, etc… I started running as aerobic maintenance when there’s not enough time to cycle + walk my dog. And because at my age, running is good for maintaining bone density that would otherwise drop significantly. At 115-118bpm, I can run 4-5 times a week for 45-60min at a time without getting fatigued or overuse symptoms in muscles. That’s when I only cycle once or twice in that week. When doing more cycling workouts, I still walk my dog but the slow run then becomes a powerwalk.
EDIT: I will get myself a Lactate Meter as a birthday present in November this year.
Yes I use MAF too. That ends up 68% 180-57 (I don’t take the +5). Also for me everything aligns to that number. Breathing, SMO2… So it just works.
Oh my, lucky you a lactate meter (can’t wait to hear what you find). If I feel rich at some point I will also get one.
It isn’t that expensive. This one is often suggested by Alan Couzens:
https://www.edge-usa.com/lactate-meter/
You do have to add the cost for the strips off course.
Med,
Do you have an intensity target once you begin reintroducing intensity sessions?
Seiler advocates for going very hard on the hard days with the classic examples of 4x8 threshold workouts for example and I don’t think I want to go quite to that level.
I think I’m going to try a 60 minute work that has warmup & zone 2 before 4 intervals of 4 minutes at 96% of FTP/3 minute rest at 40% next and then iterate the next intensity workout from there based off how I feel.
I’ve created the workout in TD and it has intensity of 0.75 partially because of the warm up and zone 2 before the intervals. If I eliminate the warm up/zone 2 the intensity is 0.83.
Maybe that is too easy, but I’d rather have it to be a little bit too easy and be able to finish the workout than to crash and burn.
Dave
I think we have to remember, this is how Seiler trains (it seems) and how he did his study but this is actually not how elites actually train. Pros/Elites do a high distribution of easy vs hard as he suggests. But very few if any would do max effort VO2max once a week for a season.
Coach Andrea suggests that a season pros start closer to 95/5 and ends closer to 80/20 (Time in Zone) Seiler suggests time in zone for should be 90/10 TiZ (80/20 based on days not TiZ) so the seasonal intensity would be similar.
So my point being I think you should find what works for you, not just follow how one guy trains that has one study (I want to clarify I fully respect him, he changed to world for the better). We have to remember he has not coached thousands of athletes to top success following his stated version polarized training.
Below is an article how his daughter does Polarized training in her running and he is her coach and it is nothing like he suggests other than mostly easy.
https://medium.com/runners-life/putting-polarized-training-into-practice-afbae4f888c5
As you see she says stuff like “find your flow” and “intelligent failure.” Also she is giving intensity distribution that is pyramidal not polarized. It’s also mostly Z1 in 5 zone system which seems crazy low (but aligns with Maffetone, lower is better than higher). Again she advocates find what works for you. Hearing from the student seems as interesting to me as hearing from the coach.
Funny that site blocks me… I guess I could try VPN but yes that price else where looks better than I realized.
I’ve listened to quite a few of Seiler’s interviews.
He is insistent that the easy stays really easy, the hard is hard enough to provide a stimulus to get stronger, and the 80/20 easy/hard ratio should be applied at the session level and not TiZ. I don’t think he’s dogmatic about pyramidal/polarized for cycling. He says the hard intervals should get your HR to 90% of peak and keep it there for a period of time.
I fully agree with him on the easy part.
I start to have more trouble with the hard part. It seems like the advice is best taken by 25 year old racers. That isn’t me. I’m a 43 year old who rides 17-18 MPH on the flats. This is where the issue comes in. What should you actually do on the 20% of hard sessions? I don’t want to spend extended amounts of time at 90% of HR peak. Cycling is my hobby and I’m just trying to get more capable at it.
Maybe instead of trying custom works I should use Coach Jack and create a custom plan that has workouts of threshold progression/zone2/zone2. I think threshold would benefit me more than VO2 max.
Dave
No easy is easy for sure, but if you hear him he also talks in places about easy going a bit higher that what our definitions of easy is as well. Meaning he sounds like it is getting closer to 80% of max HR. Most would call this easy, but compared to his daughter doing more like 60-65% of max HR that is a big difference. She is doing walk in the park level of intensity of easy it would seem like. He is doing less than breathing hard easy.
I agree he is not dogmatic about polarized/pyramidal. I completely appreciate his approach to training. My point was just I don’t think you need to do the same hard workouts he does (long painful VO2max).
I would say use our HR feature for most of your rides and using the coach jack for 1 day a week plan with something like a vo2max progression is good. Jack starts easy and builds to hard. By the time you get to the hard you should be prepared for hard and if you don’t get above level 16 or something his hard is not as hard as Seiler’s hard.
re: Seiler
I tried 4 sets x 8 minute intervals again this time in “free ride” mode on Zwift. I made it through the first interval ok at about threshold, but it became apparent in the 2nd interval that I wasn’t going to make it through all 4 so I pulled the plug on the workout then rather than find myself wrecked later.
Maybe this is a hot take, but I don’t think Seiler’s plan works for average cyclists. The hard is just too hard. I’m not taking Seiler’s advice anymore.
Coach Jack recommends a Crunched Power plan based off my Strava history. I’ll give it a try and see how it goes.
Dave
Those 8km was at what % of FTP? I find myself being able to hold about 2min at 120% -150% for a few round (like 5) outdoors but am complete crushed by 3 indoors.
Technically the max power someone can do VO2max is 6 minutes by definition of VO2max, trying to do 4 X 6 is brutally hard. 4X8 threshold is even seriously painful.
Coach Andrea designed Coach Jack. He trained many pros including Cadel Evans when he won the TDF. He says pros would never train like this and think amateurs are crazy for how hard they train. There are crazy guys that love training super, super hard. Seiler being one of them. It’s really not necessary for reaching good performance. You can start easy and gradually build up to hard efforts but you really never need to go that hard.
Now if a person loves seriously hard efforts and they are doing a nice balance of easy and hard it might give some faster improvements, but that is more of a temporary strategy, for most this is not a long term plan. When you do super hard efforts you should be having fun!!!
Can you send a link to that workout? Seems like you should set your FTP in TrainerDay but it seems like their might be a bug there.
I would not recommend doing these hard interval sessions.
I would say to any beginner: ride how you want, but ride regularly. That means ride 3, or better 4 times a week, for at least 46 weeks a year. If you do that, you will see improvements. If you do it for some time (maybe after 2 years) and don’t see improvements anymore, you can add more intense sessions once a week. Preferably sessions that you enjoy - these could be Tabata variations (Coach Jack’s HIIT A or HIIT B sessions).
3 Likes
100% in agreement here
I made that workout in Zwift. It was a 50%-65% ramp, 1 min at threshold, 1 min at 50%, and then repeats on 8 minutes “free ride” and 4 minutes 50% recovery. My supposed FTP is 212, but Zwift free ride is like TD slope mode and ERG is off. Intervals.icu says that for first 8 minute interval my average power was 193 and max HR was 171.
The ramp style FTP is my other frustration point. I think I’m an anaerobic contribution type athlete. There’s no way I could hold 212 FTP for 40+ minutes. The screen grab from the Zwift ramp is below.
I would guess I’m a 70% of MAP person instead of 75%. So if the ramp at 75% says my FTP is 212 then I would guess my real FTP to drive workouts is about 198. I could take the 20 minute test again and see if I can hold ~ 200 watts, but truthfully at this point I’m tired of testing and ready to move on to just riding the bike for fun. I can use the +/- controls in Zwift during the workouts and make the Coach Jack workouts harder/easier when needed.
Dave
I am exactly like you. If my ramp test FTP says 230 I am probably more like 200. I don’t take that as a frustration point because I just use FTP test results like this to measure progress.
I am big and most of my riding is with my 9 year olds on MTB, never 1 hour + hard efforts without breaks. So my FTP is way off a ramp test.
So this makes sense you were doing 4X8 at FTP that is still brutal but very doable by guys that love doing crazy hard work. I think CJ will be fun for you and ± is absolutely perfect!!!
I don’t agree with this anymore. I think the reason that hard was too hard is because my FTP wasn’t right.
The ramp test is completely inaccurate for me. I did a 30-minute full effort using Joe Friel’s guideline and my real FTP is 175 not the wildly inaccurate ramp test outcome of 212! It turns out I was off by an entire zone!
Dave
Yes I should have clarified that. That ramp test is good for monitoring progress, but some people need to add an adjustment factor (you and me)