training in z2

Relax and follow the plan. You'll get faster at the heart rate before you know it. It works. you won't lose speed. Think of it this way. If you raise you're aerobic capacity then the speed in which you start going anaerobic will rise as well. High tide raises all boats. Qualified for Kona 6 times using this method and sent an athlete I trained 3 more times. When it comes to Ironman, you want to be the honda civic (efficient), not the hot rod (powerful).

Keep with it...

My personal experience: went from running 10:30 minute miles struggling to stay under 170bpm, but then 3 months later, I could run 8:30 minute miles without breaking a sweat (HR around 155-160). I still run slow and easy for most of my mileage and my HR and RPE continue to drop to where running at an easy pace now feels like power-walking effort wise. 

Im not aware of any gyms that do heart rate zone testing, but maybe you can find one that does.  I am fortunate enough that my employer does an extensive physical every year which includes our max heart rate.  From there after figuring out your resting heart rate, you can figure out all of your heart rate zones.  There is another way to figure out your max heart rate based on a 30 minute time trial.  Maybe one of the more seasoned folks here can fill you in a little more.  I believe you just need a relatively flat course to do this field test.  When I did finally figure out my accurate zone 2 heart rate, it felt a little fast at the top of the zone, but now it feels great.  Last month I was doing 10 miles at an over 8:00 mile pace and today, staying in zone 2, I did a 10 mile run at  under a 7:30 a mile pace and felt great.  Just my .02   Heart rate training in my opinion works great.

You should not be using max heart rate (no matter how well you calculate it) to determine your training zones...use tests prescribed by Friel, Coggan, Allen, Beginner Triathlete, and used (in one form or another) by almost everyone on this site...

http://www.beginnertriathlete.com/cms/article-detail.asp?articleid=633

Maybe one of the experts around here will chime in, but I have never heard anyone advocate anything but LTHR testing to determine zones.

That is interesting.  I just re-read Finks chapter on heart rate zone training and he talks about figuring out your max heart rate.  I think I will do some research on LTHR.  Im always open to learn as much as possible.  After briefly looking through the above link, it seems the zones as far as RPE seem fairly accurate to the zones I have figured out for myself.  I guess its time for me to do more research

Yes. You're also determining your LTHR, not your Max HR - practically speaking, your LTHR is the HR you can sustain for an extended period of time. In endurance sports that's more useful than MHR anyway.

I found a neat excel spreagsheet online for calculating your training zones. I'm searching for it now and I'll edit to add the link if I find it.

I will also tell you that I felt the same as you when I started HR training - that my easy pace was too easy - but I've been doing it two-ish months and last weekend I went sub-8 min/mile for a five miler. (down from around 9:50-10 before). Trust the training - it does work. My joints feel better and I feel like my body has taken less of a beating. Stick with it!

No, LTHR can (and generally does) change in response to appropriate training, aging, detraining, etc.

Honestly, I am big ol' wuss and I'm pretty nervous to go through a true field test. I'm training for a long distance bike ride completely separate from my triathlons so this morning I have scheduled a ride up one of the largest mountains in the area. If I truly exert myself as hard as a feel safe doing, do you think it would a fair assessment to call that 95% and do some math from that point? 

A website I read suggested something like this if you were too afraid to go to 100%. It just all seems to boil down to our different perceptions. I'm one of those black and white people, I don't like all of this guess work and grey areas!

Another question- I need to do separate tests for running and cycling right?

Mistake accepted and posted edited to remove misinformation.

In my defense - it doesn't change a huge amount and it's more of a "zone" than a number. Joe Friel also has this article in his blog about how it doesn't change. Paragraphs 5 and 6 are the most relevant.

http://www.trainingbible.com/joesblog/2009/03/heart-rate-and-training.html

I don't want to start a firestorm away from the OP's point though.

The point is, it DOES work and the TT is the best way to figure it out!

John

This article does a decent job of explaining the importance and benefits of training at mostly easy levels of effort:

http://www.beginnertriathlete.com/cms/article-detail.asp?articleid=2165

Next, long-course training in general: I threw down my fastest sprint tri time and best placing to date while training for a HIM. You will hear this repeatedly from experienced triathletes and especially runners around here: it's the volume (total) of training over time, consistently, that gets you the speed. (The article does explain why). Fast triathletes who do primarily sprints and Olympics are still putting in a staggering amount of time, much of it at lower efforts.

But not all of it. Here we get to Fink: even in his plans, there are higher-end efforts at Z4, also known as "the edge of suffering." Because his plans are geared for iron-distance racing, however, you never get to that if you're using them to train for an Oly or HIM (which, as stated, is not what they were designed for), UNLESS ... you do the whole 30-week plan with the race falling on the 30th week. That will get you a smokin' fast Oly time, guaranteed. But most people don't have that much will and time unless they're getting an IM cherry on top at the end, and for the time you put in, there are actually more efficient ways to train for an Oly (either less time training, same result, or same time training, better result).

And more about Fink: like most IM plans, his plans start getting difficult to fit in and consistently sustain the further you get into them (that's why he spends so much of the book talking about time management). Trust me: once you get past the first 10 weeks, it's a challenge to get all of the workouts in at all, and it would be very difficult to be able to get most of them in at an effort level any higher than the prescribed ones, anyway.

Fink is one small, albeit widely used for IM, coaching data point. He's not the one doing the cutting-edge research in sports physiology, nor does he claim to follow what's conventional knowledge anyway. He's putting forth his own personal view of what works, and it is necessarily somewhat generic and simplified because he's writing a book that needs to have wide appeal, with stock plans. In other words: he's not always right, or not always right for XYZ specific people/goals/conditions. And one of those "not rights" is Maximum Heart Rate. (I think. For once, I don't have the book in front of me). The vast majority of the most successful and well-respected researchers, coaches, and endurance athletes will point you to Lactate Threshold Heart Rate to determine training zones, if you want to train that way.

As far as training by heart rate goes, yes, you need to do a field test (unless you're willing to throw down the money for lab testing, which would be GREAT! No? Okay, never mind, me neither to be honest). HOWEVER, if you read the article linked a few posts ago (on LTHR, not the one in this post), you'll see that you really need to be in certain shape--as in the kind of shape to DO that kind of effort. And yes, it hurts. Edge of suffering and all that. Ideally, you'll have been training consistently in both running and biking for about 8 weeks. So there's that.

And with That said, many people, myself included, have done very well with Fink's plans just by RPE (Rating of Perceived Exertion). It's the old "can you hold a conversation in whole sentences while running/biking" way of knowing that's Z2 training. There's a chart of RPE (actually two different ones, but sigh) around here on BT somewhere ...

So here are my thoughts. If you like the structure and simplicity of Fink, go for it. The Be Iron Fit plans are great. Use them and RPE to get yourself a good base. Do the field testing in a few weeks or couple of months, and then pick an Oly-specific plan whose prerequisites and details fit you, and use that to train specifically for your upcoming races.

Good luck, and if you haven't figured it out by now ... ask away.

Edited to add: P.S. I did look at your logs and if you wished, your cycling's at the place where you'd be ready for a field test. Running ... you really need more consistent time and volume for a while. And yes, there are two different tests, and you get two different sets of HR zones for the two activities. My recommendation doesn't change, though.

For my n=1, I was able to reach something close to my LTHR for mile intervals where the second half was up a light incline. I'm not saying that's going to be the same case for you, but it worked for me.I can't say anything about estimating the cycling TT because I haven't really done so.

The thing is this, if you do the test at 95%, then your HR zones will likely end up being too low, causing you to feel like you're struggling to stay in Z2 when training. I'm not saying don't do it - if that's the only way you feel comfortable then go ahead - but be aware of what you're measuring. :-)

And yes - the zones are different for running and cycling.

And yes, there are separate tests for the run and the bike.  You support different amounts of body weight for each hence the run will have a higher result than the bike and IIRC the zone caclulations are slightly different also.