# Am I going out too hard?



## Mad_Hun (Jul 3, 2007)

So, I've been riding now for about a month and a half, and I'm loving it. I'd like to train through the fall and winter so that I can perhaps try some light racing next summer. I've been playing around with my Edge 305, and today I was looking at my stats versus those of others doing the same circuit, and it seems like my average heart rate is quite a bit higher. I've attached a link to one of my motionbased rides below.

http://trail.motionbased.com/trail/activity/3797028

Am I going out too hard? One of the things I've noticed is that on descents, my heart rate rarely drops below ~125 bpm, while others doing the same loop get as low as 85 bpm. Are these people simply superb athletes, or am I more unfit than I thought? Just so you have the basics, I'm 30 yrs old, 6'4", relatively muscular (I lift a couple times a week), ~210lbs. Thanks.


----------



## bahueh (May 11, 2004)

*pick up a copy..*

of Friels' Cyclist Training Bible...it bases training regimens on HR...and it WORKS.
I've got a lot of friends who have followed it religiously over the past few years and their results are far and above anyone else who isn't using a HR or Power based training regimen..this time of year, your HR should hardly get above 160 for the next few months. slowly increase your mileage per your level of fatigue, then start HR intensity work early next spring as your goals emerge...

of course, this is just one way to train...there are many that may work for you..


----------



## mleptuck (Jul 29, 2002)

*My (uneducated) answer*

I think a lot of it simply boils down to genetics, for the most part. I have a riding buddy who is a few years older than I am (I'm 37, he's almost 40), but a little lighter (10-15#, I'm about 190-195, he's usually in the 175-180 neighborhood). He and I ride at nearly the same basic ability, typical cadence and speed, can climb with each other (90% of the time), etc. I am a little stronger on the flats and he's a little better of a climber, but I'd call us nearly dead-even in an overview picture.

Now, we also both have 305s and he is ALWAYS running about 10-12bpm LOWER average than I am on the same ride (rides are anywhere from 3-7 hours, and the average HR delta is almost always the same). My max HR seen on the bike is also about 12-15bpm higher than his on a given ride as well. Of course some of this can be explained by him weighing a little less (and highest HR is almost always going to be seen towards the end of a climb), but I think it just comes down to the fact that I seem to run a little 'hotter' than he does...

It's not the least bit scientific, but it IS consistent, and I can't think anyone would be willing to say 140bpm for you is EXACTLY equivalent to 140bpm for me. It just isn't.


----------



## hooper (Jul 22, 2006)

your 210 lbs. You are not unfit per say but you carry lots of muscle/size for a cyclist. Your HR is gonna be high due to the amount of blood you have to pump to your musculature compared to a guy with less muscle. vo2 max has a basis on weight so fatigue is easier on a weighty individual. Drop the weight and your HR will go down. Also go easier and slower, your gyming has done nothing to improve effficency on the bike. you should ride slower to get faster. Keep yourself in the 60-70% HR range for your rides and you will see improvement.


----------



## Argentius (Aug 26, 2004)

"today I was looking at my stats versus those of others doing the same circuit,"

The simple response is, don't do that.
--

"going out too hard" typically means, in time trials and stuff, starting so hard that you can't sustain your effort for the whole race. That isn't what you mean, it seems...

Overall, going hard is a good thing. Hardcore racer types can't train that hard in-season, because racing is hard enough, but don't worry about it.

PS, most people don't ride that hard, so, if you compare yourself to them...


----------



## TurboTurtle (Feb 4, 2004)

bahueh said:


> of Friels' Cyclist Training Bible...it bases training regimens on HR...and it WORKS.
> I've got a lot of friends who have followed it religiously over the past few years and their results are far and above anyone else who isn't using a HR or Power based training regimen..this time of year, your HR should hardly get above 160 for the next few months. slowly increase your mileage per your level of fatigue, then start HR intensity work early next spring as your goals emerge...
> 
> of course, this is just one way to train...there are many that may work for you..


How can you say 160 when you don't have a clue what that means to him? - TF


----------



## Sub (Feb 13, 2004)

Don't try to compare your HR statistics to other riders. Like what has already been said, there can be a pretty big difference. I've ridden/trained with riders than ride on an average 10-15 beats lower than I do at the same effort and riders that are 10-15 beats higher than me on average. That is why you should work on a percentage of your lactate threshold and work in zones based off of that number. You may feel like your fit but that doesn't mean your the right type of build to get the most out of your physiology on a bike. 210 lbs is alot of weight to be carrying up a hill and unless you drop weight don't plan on beating to many serious cyclists up a hill.


----------



## Mad_Hun (Jul 3, 2007)

Sub said:


> 210 lbs is alot of weight to be carrying up a hill and unless you drop weight don't plan on beating to many serious cyclists up a hill.


Thanks everyone for the advice. Unfortunately, the reality is that I probably won't be able to drop too much weight. Even if I don't work out (lifting weights), I'm still relatively broad shouldered. When I was running track in high school, I was quite lean, but I still weighed 190. I imagine I can go sub 200 again if I really concentrate on diet and not lifting, but I don't see myself getting below ~195. Bummer. I suppose I'll have to live with never winning the tour de France. :wink5: As long as I'm having fun. :thumbsup:


----------



## reikisport (Aug 16, 2006)

Strength training has very little to do with it(depending on the volume and intensity). Getting big from strength training is more about diet and volume and intensity.
Strength training should be a very important part of you training.
Will it make you more efficent on the bike maybe, maybe not. Most of the resarch is inconclusive (IMO).
What we do know is that with a good periodized Strength& Conditioning(S&C) program we can deal with the muscular imbalances that accompany cycling, and cut down on the potential for injuies. With S&C the athlete maybe able to stay in an aero postion longer. With out worry about muscular discomfort.also muscle (upper body) may protect the bones better in case of a crash (clavicles in particular). 
Bone density is another reason for S&C training (particully in women and master athletes).
By lifting heavy we can increase bone density. This is a big issue for cyclists as cyling does little(may even have a negitive effect as some studies using TDF cyclists have shown). So don't be afraid to lift heavy weights.


----------



## Wookiebiker (Sep 5, 2005)

hooper said:


> your 210 lbs. You are not unfit per say but you carry lots of muscle/size for a cyclist. Your HR is gonna be high due to the amount of blood you have to pump to your musculature compared to a guy with less muscle. vo2 max has a basis on weight so fatigue is easier on a weighty individual. Drop the weight and your HR will go down. Also go easier and slower, your gyming has done nothing to improve effficency on the bike. you should ride slower to get faster. Keep yourself in the 60-70% HR range for your rides and you will see improvement.


Not true at all....

I'm 6' tall and weigh mid 220's and have a muscular build (though I don't lift any longer) and I have a low HR compared to most around me. 

It has nothing to do with weight.

In fact a ride a couple of months ago I compared my HR with another guy that was 160 pounds....Both of us were of similar fitness and his was consistantly about 30 beats higher than me and we are not that far off in age.

The higest HR I've been able to achieve this year is 175 bpm (after a long uphill full out group sprint)....I'm 36 and in pretty good shape (completed a sub 5 hour 7000+ foot elevation gain century this summer). Basically going all out for me over a sustained period of time has my HR in the upper 150's to low 160's.

When I stop for any time over a minute or on long descents my HR can drop below 100 very quickly).

Size has little to nothing to do with HR....However, genitics, fitness, age, etc. all do play a role.


----------



## wfrogge (Mar 5, 2007)

bahueh said:


> of Friels' Cyclist Training Bible...it bases training regimens on HR...and it WORKS.
> I've got a lot of friends who have followed it religiously over the past few years and their results are far and above anyone else who isn't using a HR or Power based training regimen..this time of year, your HR should hardly get above 160 for the next few months. slowly increase your mileage per your level of fatigue, then start HR intensity work early next spring as your goals emerge...
> 
> of course, this is just one way to train...there are many that may work for you..



:mad2: 

You are waaaay off


----------



## Sub (Feb 13, 2004)

wfrogge said:


> :mad2:
> 
> You are waaaay off


How about we start trying to be constructive in this new coaching forum? IMO he is not way off, I understand the general idea of his post and he is correct. The 160 HR number isn't correct for everyone but I get what he is saying in general and it is correct. I've noticed that everyone (especially other coaches) try to use this forum to attempt to look like they have more knowlege than the previous poster or coach. It's already getting really old. There are different opinions and methods on how to train properly and I don't have a problem with anyone sharing theirs but posts like this have to stop. Every post does not have to be answered as though it was a college research paper, when a general simple answer will do.


----------



## TurboTurtle (Feb 4, 2004)

Sub said:


> How about we start trying to be constructive in this new coaching forum? IMO he is not way off, I understand the general idea of his post and he is correct. The 160 HR number isn't correct for everyone but I get what he is saying in general and it is correct. I've noticed that everyone (especially other coaches) try to use this forum to attempt to look like they have more knowlege than the previous poster or coach. It's already getting really old. There are different opinions and methods on how to train properly and I don't have a problem with anyone sharing theirs but posts like this have to stop. Every post does not have to be answered as though it was a college research paper, when a general simple answer will do.


I agree with your idea here, but cannot agree that we should just let something like, "..this time of year, your HR should hardly get above 160 for the next few months" go. You may undrstand what he is trying to say, but many won't. That answer implies a lot of misinformation from the 120-age to the idea that one thing works for everybody no matter what their goals, current status and resources. - TF


----------



## Sub (Feb 13, 2004)

TurboTurtle said:


> I agree with your idea here, but cannot agree that we should just let something like, "..this time of year, your HR should hardly get above 160 for the next few months" go. You may undrstand what he is trying to say, but many won't. That answer implies a lot of misinformation from the 120-age to the idea that one thing works for everybody no matter what their goals, current status and resources. - TF


I've just grown tired of the nit picking of everyones posts in this forum. In general what he was trying to say is it's the off season so spend some time putting in some "base" miles and then ramp up the intensity the closer you get to competition. That is the generaly understood method of training. Now, someone will come in behind me and say...yada yada we don't call it "base" training anymore! If others with less knowledge do not understand, they are free to reply and inquire for more specific information. We do not need to jump down his throat for trying to help out. Let's add to the discussion, not spend all our time trying to discredit everyone else is the point im trying to make and we will all come out ahead in the end.


----------



## wfrogge (Mar 5, 2007)

Well everybody that has a different opinion on this cant all be right (if im wrong so be it) so......


----------



## iliveonnitro (Feb 19, 2006)

The best success for a training program is having complete faith in it, whether it be Friel, Coggan, etc. The simple fact that you're on the bike more will be enough to greatly improve your fitness.

It's not if it works or not, it's if it is the best at what it does. Personally, I take a stance between Coggan and Friel. Coggan is definitely not meant for people who have less than a few years of base. Friel has his training theory almost completely wrong, but it is still better for beginners.


----------



## Spunout (Aug 12, 2002)

The best cyclists ride their bicycles. A lot. 

OP: You'll be a good bicycle rider who lifts weights. Your weight will adjust if you stop lifting and really focus on building a strong endurance base. As well as your HR recovering faster. 

If you want to race and still lift weights, your goals will have to be adjusted (downwards) to compensate.


----------

