abcc.myfastforum.org

admin

The ABCC's coaching manual calculates hear rate training zones only from maximum heart rates. There are a few very good reasons for calculating these levels/zones from establish anaerobic thresholds.

The Conconi method of finding a deflection point from plotting the heart rate against power isn't always easy to achieve and a few other methods of finding a 'threshold' are being used.

Perhaps by the highest HR that can be sustained for say three minutes, the average of the heart rate over, or between say three and nine miles, of a ten mile time trial.

What do you think?

Which method would you use?

Should we list all the alternatives and point out the preferred method?

Posted on behalf of Jim Sampson

Dave Roberts

I generally use the OTHR test which seems to give satisfactory results as far as threshold is concerned but as this could be 15 to 25 beats below max. does not allow accurate heart rate zones to be set. For most people it seems to correspond with approx. 90% MHR but not all. The zone table in the Short Distance course seems to be a good generalisation. Despite the possible dangers of a max test to older riders it seems that vets are often keen to do it !
When I did the coaching course I found some of the information perplexing. Pages 13 to 15 says a rider with an MHR of 200 would have a Level 1 of 150 -155 ; LL2 around 155 ; UL2 155-165 while the table on page 16 gives L1 120-130 ; LL2 130-150 ; UL2 150-164.

MASHER · Joined: 31 Dec 2007 Posts: 2

I feel MHR is irrelevent as we don't train to it and it is too variable.I would take your AV HR from a 20min FTP test and then calculate Zones at a % from that just as you would for FTP.
So you could be doing 40 minutes at 80-85% 20min av-hr one session and 5 minutes at 105% of FTP AV-HR on another session.
The truth is that I don't rate HR as an accurate gauge for Zones anymore as it is to liable to drift from one zone to another over time for the same power.
_________________
In life, you can't go forward looking back!

Lynn Marris · Joined: 23 Feb 2008 Posts: 2 Location: North Lincolnshire

Has anyone know any riders who have had a mhr test?
how did the result compare with predicted mhr using calculation?

Mark Gorman · Joined: 03 Jan 2008 Posts: 3 Location: Cornwall

Two of my riders have undergone these tests, as part of University studies. The results were within the bounds of what I would have expected +/- 5bpm. I would say that this would make a sound basis for setting levels. However, the tests have been repeated on more than one occasion. I would agree with Masher, that a single test would not make a rational starting point.

Something else to be considered is the gradual reduction with age of the supposed MHR. From what I have read, it would appear that the MHR of a rider should fall by 1-2 bpm per year after the age of 40. I now have a number of years of my own records which seem to contradict this. I, myself have undergone some lab testing and my records show no such decrease. Should we therefore assume that the MHR of our riders remains static or reduces with age?

Lynn Marris · Joined: 23 Feb 2008 Posts: 2 Location: North Lincolnshire

Thanks Mark.

Its interesting to know how a riders Max HR that have had a proper test, compares to the prdicted max using the various calculating methods.

Joe Friel suggests in his book Riding past 50 that athletes who continue to train and compete at high intensities do not slow down as much as the general population and may not slow down at all. so the 220 minus your age rule may be less reliable with athletes who have never stopped racing.

Joe Friel also suggests using HR at Lactate threshold as a starting point for setting zones. For the same reason as Masher suggests
He suggests various tests which to establish LT in his book The Cyclist Training Bible.

mark the spark · Joined: 24 Jul 2008 Posts: 11 Location: Hull

Local and active senior ABCC coach and mentor Jim Sampson used to take a turbo to local meets and do max tests with other riders egging the subject on, this would likely result in as maximal an effort as possible, though he agree's that a move towards basing training zones around a measure of the anerobic threshold is much more relevant.

On the subject of 220 - age, fellow ABCC coach and club member, Dave Compston of the age of 44 (sorry Dave), has a max HR of 155, some way off the commonly used formulae.

Outside of the lab, relatively accurate measures of the anaerobic threshold are probably around 10mile TT pace, which is why we take it for coaching purposes.
Then of course we can discuss the Conconi method for which I feel makes sense from a coaching perspective, though for which there appears to be a substantial body of scientific literature rubbishing the method as not showing statistical significance, though I personaly have not had time to examine limitations of the many studies presently.

By plotting a graph of HR against power or speed during a ramp test, we might recognise a definable point shown by a digression from linearity (a straight line), indicating a point where the anaerobic threshold may occur. Sensible ramp protocols appear to be 25W per minute increments starting at modest power outputs allowing for a test completion at maximal effort within 8-12 minutes.

Can't claim to have much experience at this yet though on paper it appears to be probably the most practicle way of assessing this important point within the bounds of our domestic coaching space.

All the best for the year to come!

Smile

Porkyboy · Joined: 31 Dec 2007 Posts: 5

Hi

mark the spark · Joined: 24 Jul 2008 Posts: 11 Location: Hull

Power meters are great tools, though limited due to expense and accuracy between systems. Heart Rate however can be tracked very cheaply and for the most part is as much feedback as most people need or want.

There influx of top riders using power meters during races is perhaps an eye opener, as there is no getting away from the fact that if experience tells that you should be able to produce x amount of power over x distance, then toeing the line and sticking to the output shown on the meter should bring results. Picture Millar obviously struggling in last years Tour TT's, but eyeing his meter and powering on, all but winning those rides if it weren't for the likes of that cheat Schumacher (was that a surprise to anyone?), and only a few others.

I was surprised in reading somewhere Michael Hutchinson's advice to cover up the power output during racing, and understand from talking, watching and reading that knowing what you can maintain and sticking to it during racing, produces results.
If you want to make a break and you know you can sustain 300W for a few minutes before you're blown, then you can temper your effort without going too hard, and likewise for time trialing where we should all be aware that the most consistent effort is said to bring the fastest results. That effort which borders our maximal steady state, Lactate/Anaerobic threshold or whatever anyone cares to call it.

The best thing about power meters for me are you can get cheap enough turbo's to do accurrate intervals at an appropriate power output, where trying to do them on HR could be at times a hit and miss affair, think especialy when your fresh, and especialy when your not.
How you feel against the power reading and HR gives an unbeatable indications of how fatigued you actualy are too. One day flying through structured power intervals, another time struggling.

As for the on the bike SRM or Powertap kit, I'm affraid thats one of those boys toys thats way out of my league.

For me during racing, going on feel does, and will continue to do.

Happy racing now Smile

Porkyboy · Joined: 31 Dec 2007 Posts: 5

Hi