I know that this topic has been discussed thoroughly in the past. I have reviewed as many of those threads as possible, however I have some questions as relates to my own training that I don’t yet fully understand the answers to.
I am an experienced long-term endurance athlete with decades of training at a fairly high level in both running and cycling. Currently all training is cycling. I have been training 10-15 hours/week for a couple of years since returning to cycling after a long break (during which I was mostly running, up to about 10hrs/week). I am 45 years old if that matters.
I do a lot of Z2 riding but want to ensure that I am using that time wisely. I train largely by power, however as I’ve re-built a solid base over the last couple of years, I’m finding that power zones and HR zones have significant offsets at these easier levels.
For example see these screen shots from a ride last week. Power was largely Z2/Z3, but HR was entirely Z1.
This ride is actually a bit ‘harder’ than many of my ‘Z2’ rides have been as I allowed myself to go up into Z3 quite a bit as you can see. I live in a very hilly area, and this ride was during the hottest part of the day 90F+.
My question is, should I be pushing during these Z2 rides to get my HR into Z2? Or working to keep power within Z2 as much as possible (difficult on steep hills, but I can do it).
I am asking because I do feel like while I’ve ridden the steep ramp of newb gains as I’ve re-built volume, I’m starting to plateau a bit and want to, as I say, make sure I’m making good use of my time.
FWIW I’m quite sure my zones are set correctly, I’ve had numerous lab tests over the years, and everything lines up with RPE, actual ride data, etc.
Interesting question. I have observed a similar behavior in myself and am wondering if I might have configured either my FTP or my heart rate zones incorrectly - even though each seems consistent on its own. It’s just that my power and heart rate don’t align. Perhaps there’s another suitable explanation for this…
In short, you’re looking at information from different systems that will often not align nicely in graphs. Many factors will affect each system: muscular leg strength, cadence, hydration, metabolic efficiency, heat, etc… Also, HR is a lagging metric as opposed to power. This means that while changes in power will be recorded nearly instantaneously (depending on various settings), HR can take several minutes to reflect changes in output demands, both up and down. This could be why you’re seeing the Z3-Z7 buckets filled in your power chart but not in your HR chart.
One thing of note from your images, your HR zones may be set rather high. Regardless of what percentage base you are using, 80% as a cut-off for HR Z1 is very high. People often overestimate the top value of their zones. Most of the published zone values are for elites, not the rest of us. In the chart below, the highest value in each square is an estimate that equates to the fittest athletes in their particular sport. If you’re not an elite in the sport for which you are calculating values then your top-end value will probably not be the higher range value. (Note: HR values are calculated per sport. Your HR zones for one sport, i.e. cycling, are not the same as for another sport, i.e. running.
In the summary chart below, you have to find which values align with your cardio, pulmonary and metabolic systems. Once you do, then you have to keep an eye on daily, weekly and monthly fluctuations between power and HR.
I’ve posted a link to this chart in spreadsheet form in this thread.
Thanks for the response Howie. I believe I understand the major differences between power and HR as an information source. All of the reasons you list are why I prefer training primarily by power. I especially agree about the lagging measurement of HR - in an area that is constantly rolling hills HR simply can’t capture many of the efforts of cresting those rollers. Also valuable for high intensity intervals where HR never catches up.
In this case I don’t think it’s any of these factors influencing what I’m seeing, however. Much of my example ride was intentionally steady-state well into power Z3. Perhaps if I had attempted to keep that effort for longer still (hours, instead of many minutes) eventually HR would rise more substantially. I suppose this is what I am primarily asking. Should I be pushing well into Z3 power for the majority of my easy rides in order to trigger a Z2 HR response?
Your comment on the zones being high is interesting. AFAIK I am using the default zones here, and they align fairly closely with the defaults on Strava and Garmin which I also use. If you look at my HR distribution chart, however, the bulk of my effort is <125BPM which is already 6BPM below the top of current Z1. I’d have to adjust the zones down fairly substantially to actually move a ride like this well into my HR Z2.
I appreciate any additional conversation on this topic.
Regarding the interval (Z1, Z2, or Z3), there’s no such thing as steady state. If you ride long enough it won’t be sustainable and thus, by definition not be a steady state. This is why I shy away from that term. If you ride long enough, even a Z1-Z2 power will result in (upward) HR drift. Thus, ‘steady-state’ is determinant upon effort intensity relative to duration. Answering the question of whether to extend an interval and/or ride is determinant upon the purpose of the ride.
If the aim of the session is to push the leg muscles hard to stimulate higher power output in general then the answer is no, don’t extend the duration.
If the aim of the session is to try and maintain endurance power to be able to ride a bit longer at a stronger pace, they yes, extend but at a lower power than for #1, or be willing to provide your body with proper recovery over the next 72-96 hours.
If the aim of the session is to put in time in the saddle to increase the ability to pedal for 9-12 hours in a day, then yes, extend the session but you’d better start off at a lower effort, for both legs and HR.
Regarding the HR zones, I don’t put much stock in default settings. Check out the spreadsheet I linked to. Plug in your max and resting HR, note the various ranges and then keep an eye on how your body responds so that you discover your own HR zones for your body. The top of your HR Z1 might be 131 if you’re a young buck. Is your max HR for cycling actually 180bpm?
Personally, Sleamaker and Browning’s zones are spot on for me, no tweaking needed… I have an endurance diesel engine. Once warmed up (after 45 minutes) just keep feeding and watering me and leave me to it. I’ll go all day. Just don’t ask me to do a crit 'cause I’ll spew all over the course. (Tho that’s changing as I train for the Cykelvasa MTB.)
My favourite method for establishing power and HR zones is to sit on a trainer for three hours at least once a week. Take blood glucose (direct, not CGM) and lactate before starting out and then every 15-30 minutes. Use the first 30 minutes as easy warmup. During this time, the blood lactate should drop below the starting value as the body uses it for fuel. After that, you want to find a steady lactate value. If it starts to rise more than a little bit then you’re probably going too hard, back off and see what happens. During this time, be aware of respiration rate and heart rate. Notice as well your power output. Is everything staying steady? Keep track of water and food intake, as well as cooling fans. This is a great way to find out what your body can utilise. I learned both what kind of food and the amounts my body needs, and when that shifts to different needs. (After nine hours my body will NOT absorb any more simple CHO, period.) Once you can do this for three hours then start pushing the duration and see when your body starts to crack. If you can go five hours without lactate or HR drift then either go longer or bump the effort and see how things change.
One of the reasons I like to test this way is because it anchors mathematical values to biological systems. It’s all about energy systems.
I’ve downloaded the spreadsheet and input the values. My max HR is correct at 180 (confirmed at numerous races this season), and the spreadsheet fairly closely matches the values above. That puts the top of Z1 at 135bpm in the Sleamaker and Browning column.
I’m a diesel as well these days, and anything below 135bpm I can do all day even though I’m not so young any more. Z2 under that model is 136-144 which is perfectly achievable for many hours (recent races I’ve averaged 155bpm for 3hrs+) but requires much more intense focus and effort than simply spinning along <135BPM - and I’ll be well into Z3 power to do that. Recovery will be minimally longer, but I won’t generally notice much effect from even a 3hr ride at that level the next day.
No idea about your blood glucose monitoring. Is that something that’s fairly accessible these days?
Very interesting. The next step, IMHO, is to do some at home testing. Get used to testing blood lactate by yourself while sitting on the trainer and without stopping. Cleanliness matters. FYI, alcohol swabs clean the skin but also leave traces that affect values. Glucometers are easily available from many drug stores or Amazon. Get a reasonable amount of lancets and test strips. The BG isn’t essential for the test I described. Lactate is. The BG offers more info for learning how to fuel better. Still, I found it to be an added dimension to dial in an all-day Z2 effort (where I knew that I could maintain BG for hours without taking a nose-dive.) When you do the test see if you can dial in both your power levels and bpm at whatever blood lactate value appears to be LT1 (the steady point that can be held for longer durations).
Note: LT1 isn’t the same for everyone. Some people might have 1.2mmol whereas others will have 2.2mmol. Some might ride nicely at 117-124bpm while others might be 10 beats higher.
The lactate guideline I’m using is 1 mmol over the lowest value measured during the first 30 minutes at very low intensity (HR around 100bpm).
As HR guideline, I use MAF, 180 - age as an absolute cap. Z2 target for me is 115bpm (I’m going on 60 this year and never set my target at the max), 1.6mmol Lactate. So even after 20+ years of consistent training, I don’t apply the +5 bpm. In my opinion, it doesn’t improve training results.
Started doing this about 2 years ago and couldn’t be more happy with it. My daily training feels like an enjoyable time that I don’t want to miss. If, on rare occasions, it feels like a chore, I’m heading back home right away. It does take some discipline in the beginning because as long as your body isn’t used to this, it’s actually very slow.
After 6-10 weeks you should start to see improvements. I’m now going faster at 110bpm then 3-4 years ago at 135bpm. And it feels more comfortable. @Howie Do you also have a negative decoupling on workouts shorter then ~90 min? From about 60-90 minutes on, depending on day by day, decoupling stabilises and remains stable for 6+ hours.
And I rarely absorb food for anything shorter then 3 hours. If I’m going out for more then 3 hours, I need to set some reminders to start eating after about 1hour or I will get in trouble after 4-5 hours.
I do realize that this is all rather specifically targeted to long events, but that’s what I like. Why do I like it? Almost surely because I discovered that I was good at it. I’m small and I don’t have any good max power numbers to brag about, but I can go loooooong…
The twin-liness continues. My numbers are pretty similar. 58M, effective Z2 ceiling for TT 117bpm, lactate 1.7, +5bpm MAF doesn’t help me. (MTB training, I often do several sprint bouts into high 120’s even 130’s to simulate race conditions. This is balanced with long trainer rides at very steady 108-115bpm.)
100%! Generally, people push the top end of each zone thinking that gives the most bang for the buck. It usually only provides bang. If they settled in somewhere lower in the zone and let development take its time then they’d see more improvement. I tell people to give me 6-8 months of feeling like they’re hardly doing anything. (Which is only a mental experience because their physical metrics are clearly indicating that the body is working significantly, the person just isn’t used to listening.) By that time time I get a message/email/call saying “you won’t believe what just happened” when they did something previously unthinkable and their body hardly flinched.
Very interesting that you ask about decoupling. At 45 min it’s like the oil suddenly gets warm and I can move with less resistance. At around 75 min I struggle and have to back down a bit to push through. Then, as you say, around the 90 min mark I’m back in the game. Three hours is definitely my max without food—two, no problem. I can go three but I know that it’s not smart because I’ll pay a price later. Curiously, three on the MTB is much easier than three on the TT, maybe because the mind is more occupied in MTB.
Why do I like long events? 'Cause that’s what suits my body and mind. I’m not that fast at shorter stuff (relative to my peers). Same as you, no big power numbers but give me enough time and I’ll push on by the crowd, today, tomorrow and the next day. I like routine and cruise control. Even with 3-4 hour MTB events I settle into steady kinaesthetics (with intermittent excitements).
Steady state is a thing, providing your comment (bolded) applies.That’s why “it depends” is a coach’s favourite response.
The debate on FTP being 1-hour power, or not, is a classic example. “It depends” on how long (duration) one can sustain the effort (intensity) at steady state. For some, it might only be 10-mins using a ramp test to estimate/determine the FTP number, or 90-95% of 20-mins, or 60-mins (which would most likely be lower than the preceding two methods) from actually doing the hour.
The infamous Z2 (below LT1/VT1) is also steady state for a certain duration (<2 mmol), with or without fueling, until one can no longer sustain that effort (and there’s the uptick in lactate accumulation), hence the aerobic threshold (AeT) or base fitness.
Not being a pro by any mean and having less experience probably than you, guys, wanted to put a few coins here.
All these tables with HR calculations are good in general to get some idea what your zones might look like, but if you did some lab testing - they should have measured your lactate level during the test. Using that you can quite precisely adjust the settings in all your devices and on the site. Can’t say for everyone, but my zones are fairly off from what all those calculators provides (comparing to lab outcome). Tho we all know zone boundaries are not that strict
Same story with power zones actually but with addition that your FTP (which is used to calculate everything) is also a measurement at some particular moment of time and might fluctuate due to different reasons (aka form, preparation, load, etc)
In my opinion it’s absolutely normal for these graphs to be different a bit in distribution. The real question is what to use? My coaches always said me to look more into power chart, because HR might fluctuate a lot due to sleep quality, weather, hormones etc. AFAIK elites are even somehow corrects on the fly with lactate measurements during the training, but that’s not our case.
Side note: since the initial question actually mentioned plateau - I think it will be really slow process to build something form-wise without including short intense sessions in high zones and maybe even gym sessions.
Lactate levels from a lab test is just a snapshot from that day. You will have some variation day to day, based on a number of factors, eg. sleep, nutrition and hydration, recovery status, etc. So there is no “precise” setting, which is why there are a few metrics that would give a better overall view when paired together. Feel/RPE, HR and Power, HRV trends and a few others can all be used to triangulate if training is likely to be impaired or not.
Steven Seiler has been very clear on this point. Triangulation is important (vs. myopathy).
The ability isn’t limited to elites. Also, not all elites can adjust on the fly. It’s a matter of a) experience, and b) listening to the signals from the body (as @Gerald points out), c) dedication to clarity.
I agree mostly. For anything ‘steady state’, I use HR (steady state being interpreted as any interval where your HR stabilizes before about half of the interval duration). LT1 based on lactate, for me, is very close to the MAF value of 180 - age. I acquired a lactate meter november last year and have done LT1 testing every 8 weeks since. Endurance, tempo and even sweetspot can be done on HR once you have a ‘ballpark’ value for the power where your HR will stabilize.
I never do FTP/LT2 testing and base higher intensity work on the PDC curve at first, which is fed with up to date data from weekly group rides. When I do a peak period, the starting value for Threshold and VO2 is derived from the PDC curve. I follow up by reducing/increasing the intensity following the result of that first session.
I use eFTP from Intervals (min duration 6min) as FTP for load calculation, and that works good enough for me.
Any interval target, be it HR or Power, is set to be achievable. I will always first try to increase time at target before increasing the target value itself.
The cardiovascular benefits of Zone 2 are recognized when the heart is in Zone 2. So, whatever it takes to get it there and keep it there. Determining HR Zone in my case comes out within a handful of beats whether using Max HR, LTHR, Max HR w Resting Heart Rate calculations.
I caught a podcast Stephen Seiler was a participant in awhile back which I can’t put my finger on. He had been away for a bit and mentioned that he was surprised on return that cyclists were using Zone 2 as an end in and of itself, which it was never intended to be. He said Zone 2 was intended to be a prescription for cyclists to put in more time in the saddle when they were unable to do that time at higher intensities. In other words, if I only have 8 hours a week and I can do that at tempo (incl HIIT) then good for me. But, if I can’t then I need to add Zone 2. If I’m wanting to do a 50 mile event with challenging grades, I need to develop endurance. If I need to train up to that point, then that has to (likely) involve Zone 2 as I work up my hours to the time I’m going to need.
We always hear pro riders talk about how they never trained at Zone 2. They aren’t even really sure what that is. They just go out and ride. At some point well conditioned athletes don’t need Zone 2. Their efforts in the hours they have per week exceed Zone 2.
Yes Zone 2 has benefits, but requires greater time. The more constructive time in the saddle a rider can spend, the better his fitness will become. If shorter time constraints deem it mute to have to be in Zone 2 , then there’s no reason to be there.
I love metrics too. I evidently have engineering in my soul. I think we all do here. But, those metics can become the trees instead of the forest imo.
My numbers are pretty similar. 58M, effective Z2 ceiling for TT 117bpm, lactate 1.7, +5bpm MAF doesn’t help me. (MTB training, I often do several sprint bouts into high 120’s even 130’s to simulate race conditions. This is balanced with long trainer rides at very steady 108-115bpm.)
Even with 3-4 hour MTB events I settle into steady kinaesthetics (with intermittent excitements).
