Doing my long and slow workouts too fast

How did you set your HR zones?

What plan are you following?

what Kathy asked, plus:

- describe your level of effort during these workouts? could you hum or speak in whole sentences? do you finish feeling like you could do some more? what are you like the rest of the day?

Have you ever considered using RPE (rate or perceived exertion) instead of HR?  I made the switch two seasons ago to simplify things and won't ever go back!

I do a test every 6 months. I go as hard as I possibly can doing hill repeats to see my max HR. Which is roughly 176bpm. 

Then that's 100%

So 70% is 17.6x 7 which is 123 and 80% is about 140

After my workout on my bike I'm pretty tired for the rest of the day. I generally don't feel like I can do too much more after my longer bikes (3hrs) as I feel I may have pushed a bit too hard.  

Training by RPE is always better than pseudo HR training based on the wrong training zones. If the OP is referring to "70%" of max HR then he is doing the latter.

Edited by the bear 2011-01-15 1:14 PM

Do this instead...Lactate Threshold Heart-Rate Zone Testing Protocol.

BTW, Run and Bike are not the same, test for each.


Edited by Donto 2011-01-15 1:33 PM

As long as you wake up the next day ready to hit your next workout then I wouldn't sweat it.  You'll figure out along the way if your taking on too much of a load.  If you feel run down and tired try backing off for a few days.  If you feel better than you have your answer.  Learning to listen to your body is invaluable and sometimes staring at a number on a screen can be meaningless if you aren't in tune with yourself.

While this may work well for you, any system that uses maxHR (even if it includes resting HR as well) has inherent issues as maxHR is not an indicator of fitness.

Shane

Long and slow is overrated.

No, just any system that is determined using maxHR to set training intensity.

Shane

x10.

However, a true HR reserve (your actual max HR - your actual resting HR) is reflective of your VO2 range. Resting VO2 to VO2 max. So if one wants to set training zones based on percentage of Vo2 max, then the Karvonen formula is actually somewhat appropriate.

However I agree that it does not reflect changes in fitness and is therefore not nearly as robust as basing training zones on a time trial field test of 20, 30 or 60 minutes (pick your poison).

The british cycling association advocates basing bike training zones off of percentage of Maximum Aerobic Power, which is a similar approach as the Karvonen formula (one based on tested power, one based on physiologic HR reserve). I only use this in the dead of winter with an athlete who cannot/won't do a time trial test on the trainer (oh wait, that's me...I can't stand doing time trials...) But in these cases, I mostly suggest people stick with RPE.

So if you just train on effort, then what use are heart rate monitors and training zones? 

You could try training with power.

jamie

Edited by jamiej 2011-01-16 4:27 AM

They provide a way to measure effort and for beginners, it's great for them to see what the various training zones feel like.  When I first started running marathons, I did all my long runs by HR, even though it was painfully slow.  It really helped me develop a feel for what "easy" was supposed to feel like.

I train mostly by effort now, although I do keep an eye on my HR to try and keep myself honest. 

True which is why I mentioned that it has inherent issues and not that it was completely wrong.  Also, since finding a maxHR is a very painful process with very little upside.  If someone wants to train using VO2max percentages, then I would prefer that they use a field or lab test to determine these numbers rather than the Karvonen Formula.



Which was the point I was trying to make; field test regularly (or race) to measure fitness and adjust training zones as required.



Do they prescribe this for all athletes (including elites) or is this for non-elites?

Also, I am with you in that if someone can't or won't test, use RPE and call it a day.

Shane

It doesn't really matter what method you use to guide your training, the key is that you pick a method you want to follow and then use appropriate methods in order to implement your approach.

There are four main methods that are used to gauge intensity:

RPE (rate of perceived exertion) - there is the Borg scale (6-20) and a modified scale (goes to 10) and is based off how you are feeling while exercising.  However, this method needs to be calibrated and many novices have a hard time gauging their intensity and training for a period of time with something that provides intensity feedback (like a HRM) can be useful to help an athlete understand what easy should feel like and what hard should feel like.

HR - for this, a proper test is important in order to establish training zones.  The most common is the test Friel explains in the Triathlete's Training Bible and can be found in several articles and posts here.  Essentially a 30 minute TT is used to estimate "lactate threshold" HR and then based off this number, training zones are established.

Power - requires a powermeter and is only useful for cycling.  Again, a test is required with a couple of common tests used - a 2x20' TT or a critical power test which are used to establish a power number (FTP or Critical Power) and then training levels are developed from this number.

Pace - works well for swimming and running but much less effective for cycling.  A test or race effort is used to calculate training paces (for running Daniels's VDot or MacMillan's calculators are widely used; for swimming, there is some information regarding pace for zones based on test results) for different training intensities.

The key for HR, Power and Pace is that regular testing (or racing) occurs in order to set training levels.  The test usually involves an attempt to determine the effort you could sustain for an hour in race conditions and set training levels based on the HR/Power/Pace at this effort.

Shane

Shane, shouldn't it be noted that if someone chooses to train running by pace that it works best on flat courses in relatively stable climates or with the experience to make adjustments for conditions? I always picture a beginner who lives somewhere like I do (combination of flat and hilly with winter lows of 0 deg F and summer highs close to 100 deg F) trying to hold the same pace during a hilly race in August as they did during a March training run on a flat course, and not understanding why they blew up or got cramps. ( It HAD to be electrolytes! :-) )

Edited by TriMyBest 2011-01-16 5:55 AM

Sounds like we are on the same page. I've never had the patience to dig deeply into the british cycling association stuff, but Peter Keen seems to be the one leading the way.

Article about his training zones:
http://www.machinehead-software.co.uk/bcfguide.html

Article about Keen & the 2012 Summer olympics
http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2010/jul/27/london-2012-olympics-pe...

I just like to be sure that people don't that everything having to do with Max HR is junk science...becuase it's not. What's junk is the 220-age = Max HR. People get used to seeing "MaxHR" in that formula, learn that the formula is no good, then assume that Max HR is no good.

I like to defend Max HR every once in awhile, the same way I'd defend finding your VO2 Max.

I"m not Shane (of course), but the answer, I believe, is that if you follow the advice to test frequently, the weather won't be a huge issue (i.e., you've done a test, recently, in weather that is not too far from current weather.)  And yes, you should test on courses that are similar to what you train on.  Over time, it isn't too difficult to learn how to compensate for conditions.

Michael, I was referencing Shane's comment about training by pace rather than RPE or HR.  How do you test for pace?  Were you responding based on HR testing?

I think that the response holds for both HR and pace.

Your point is valid -- pace will be affected by conditions, both weather and on the course (and other things).  So one should test pace (preferably in a race, but time trials work too if you are sufficiently self-motivated) in conditions that are somewhat similar to what you'll be training in.  If you test frequently, on courses similar to where you train, you should be able to cover those bases pretty well.

And remember that when we train by pace, it isn't as if we are going out there to hit a specific pace exactly.  (Not that we don't do that sometimes for other reasons, but 'training by pace' doesn't require it.)  If you look at McMillan, for example, he gives a pretty wide range of paces for the various types of run.  That range is already enough to account for most differences in conditions between the test and the training.