# Zone 3 Training



## Corenfa

Background - most of my races are crits or shorter road races (40-80 miles) and occasional ITTs. 

In general, I have what would be considered a high heart rate. My absolute peak that I've measured is 237; however, as I tend to stay more fit, 200 seems to be a very realistic peak. As such, I'm working off the assumption that somewhere around 150BPM is close to my zone 3. 

Having read a lot about different training zones, including this article:
Joe Friel - Should You Train in Zone 3?
which I think has some decent info, I've thought of a few questions.

I attempted a pure zone 3 session last night on the computrainer (using Zwift - which is super cool BTW). I averaged 189 watts over 15 miles with my average HR at 151 and a peak of 181 (going for a sprint on one lap). The 15 miles went by fast and was very easy. Afterwards, I felt great and really ready for some hard riding. However, I was slow in comparison to my norm and was down in the standings of the other riders. 

Given that I ride mostly short races, is there any value in continuing this type of training or would I be better suited focusing on zone 5 training?

What is an appropriate amount of time to worry about training in zone 3?

Should I expect to see my zone 3 wattage increase by spending more time in zone 3? How about zone 5 wattage?

There seem to be no end of sports nutrition and training articles on the subject, many of which contradict each other. I'm looking for people who have done this type of training and have real world experience and advice.

Thanks!


----------



## pedalbiker

You have watts. Ditch the hrm. It's archaic and can be very misleading. 

Get an idea of your ftp by either testing or something else (I use NP from 45-60 min crits) and base zones off that. 

Much more accurate, even if your ftp isn't completely dialed in.

Then start training. Lots of regular, steady riding + a workout or two a week. Maybe substitute a hard group ride or race. 

Some tempo stuff is good: 30-60 mins steady. Some threshold stuff is good: 2-3x 10-20 min steady efforts. And some VO2 stuff is good. 4-5x5-8 min hard... 

Very generic but frankly, generic works really well if you does it halfway decently.

And to answer your question, assuming z3 is right around tempo range; I don't train in this range in season except for the occasional 60-75 min steady tempo ride. Very occasional. 

Off season, however, I'll do this and threshold stuff multiple times a week for a few months. Time and place for everything. September, though, is the end of the race season for most. So...eh. Do what you want! 

*Edited


----------



## Corenfa

Aw, that hurts. I know how to use the HRM. Besides, the watt meter is only on the trainer, not on the bike. Besides, I can correlate the watt output to HR in a real race.


----------



## ibericb

pedalbiker said:


> You have watts. Ditch the hrm. It's archaic and can be very misleading.


Rubbish!

HRM's are extremely useful, if you know how to use them properly. Further, in spite of attempts to determine that either one leads to a better training outcome, there remains NO evidence that either a HRM or power meter is superior for training purposes (see this study and this one too). 

Each has its advantages and its limitations. The top cycling pros use both, and only cycling can use a power meter at all. The best is to use both, but you need to know how to use both. They separately tell you different things. An insightful guide on how to use both concurrently can be found here.

As far as how to best train -- pick your school and go from there. Develop a plan based on proven methods, and then stick to it. All will lead to improvements. It remains debated which is best. You can read the results of a recent study that compares different training approaches here, and another here.


----------



## PBL450

ibericb said:


> Rubbish!
> 
> HRM's are extremely useful, if you know how to use them properly. Further, in spite of attempts to determine that either one leads to a better training outcome, there remains NO evidence that either a HRM or power meter is superior for training purposes (see this study and this one too).
> 
> Each has its advantages and its limitations. The top cycling pros use both, and only cycling can use a power meter at all. The best is to use both, but you need to know how to use both. They separately tell you different things. An insightful guide on how to use both concurrently can be found here.
> 
> As far as how to best train -- pick your school and go from there. Develop a plan based on proven methods, and then stick to it. All will lead to improvements. It remains debated which is best. You can read the results of a recent study that compares different training approaches here, and another here.


Great articles, thanks man!!


----------



## pedalbiker

Corenfa said:


> Aw, that hurts. I know how to use the HRM. Besides, the watt meter is only on the trainer, not on the bike. Besides, I can correlate the watt output to HR in a real race.


Really? Because most people's hrs are quite a bit elevated in race situations. Plus, how about hot days? Do you account for higher heat and humidity? That has an enormous effect on hr. 

How about cardiac drift? Do you account for that, too? Do you account for variances due to training versus freshness (I've seen 10-15 bpm swings depending on whether or not I'm mid week versus weekend and the correlating fatigue/freshness). 

I can give more examples, but anyway. 

_W_hile 237 sounds extremely unlikely, there's a huge difference between that and 200. Your hr doesn't just change over 10% depending on whether or not you're fit. So huge problem right there starting out.

*Edited


----------



## pedalbiker

ibericb said:


> Rubbish!
> 
> HRM's are extremely useful, if you know how to use them properly.


So we all said 10 years ago to justify not investing in an SRM. 

Like I said, archaic and wrought with daily variance that has to be accounted for.

Rubbish? Yet compare hrm use to powermeters. There's a reason, ya know?


----------



## Drew Eckhardt

Corenfa said:


> Background - most of my races are crits or shorter road races (40-80 miles) and occasional ITTs.


So skip zone 3 entirely.

Training-intensity distribution during an ironman season: relationship with competition performance.



> Training and the competition were both quantified based on the cumulative time spent in 3 intensity zones: zone 1 (low intensity; <AeT), zone 2 (moderate intensity; between AeT and AnT), and zone 3 (high intensity; >AnT).


AeT is a conversational pace, low Friel zone 2 heart rate. Polarized zone 3 starts at FTP which is high Z4 or the Z4/Z5 split depending on whose zones you use. Z3 tempo is in polarized zone 2.



> Significant inverse correlations were found between both total training time and training time in zone 1 vs performance time in competition (r = -.69 and -.92, respectively). In contrast, there was a moderate positive correlation between total training time in zone 2 and performance time in competition (r = .53) and a strong positive correlation between percentage of total training time in zone 2 and performance time in competition (r = .94).





> While athletes perform with HR mainly in zone 2, better performances are associated with more training time spent in zone 1. A high amount of cycling training in zone 2 may contribute to poorer overall performance.





Corenfa said:


> How about zone 5 wattage?


No.



> There seem to be no end of sports nutrition and training articles on the subject, many of which contradict each other. I'm looking for people who have done this type of training and have real world experience and advice.


Switching to a mostly (I can't resist a weekly 1:15 - 1:30 threshold ride) polarized plan made me faster over longer distances and power didn't increase any slower than with two hard days a week and multiple tempo rides.

It was better for weight too - instead of plateauing with a lot of extra fat I need to eat more than necessary to sate my hunger in order to maintain weight. Separation in my upper pair of abs and oblique vascularity is good; ab vascularity is a bit too much. 5'9.5", 136-137 pounds


----------



## PBL450

pedalbiker said:


> Really? Because most people's hrs are quite a bit elevated in race situations. Plus, how about hot days? Do you account for higher heat and humidity? That has an enormous effect on hr.
> 
> How about cardiac drift? Do you account for that, too? Do you account for variances due to training versus freshness (I've seen 10-15 bpm swings depending on whether or not I'm mid week versus weekend and the correlating fatigue/freshness).
> 
> I can give more examples, but anyway.
> 
> And I said you don't have a clue because your entire hr training seems to be based off numbers you _think are right. W_hile 237 sounds extremely unlikely, there's a huge difference between that and 200. Your hr doesn't just change over 10% depending on whether or not you're fit. So huge problem right there starting out.


Right... I forget sometimes that cycling is the only endurance sport in the world and every other athlete that runs, XC Skis, rows or whatever is an idiot and can't possible develop a viable training plan to improve their outcomes. Those variations are insurmountable. And that's why biathletes are chumps that somehow master human exercise physiology better than everyone else combined? Go XC Ski race and stop to shoot bumble bees with a .22. Posers, that's what they are. 

That said, 237 is nuts.


----------



## pedalbiker

Just because they don't have a more accurate means of measuring workload doesn't mean that they couldn't measure training more optimally with something other than hr (none of that is to say they could or would train more optimally, because at that level... yeah, they're probably doing just about all they can do, regardless of how it's measured). 

Why are you going on about other sports, anyway? Absolutely massive strawman you're creating, there. 

HR doesn't hold a candle to power based training for umteen amounts of reasons. 

Same thing with running, which is why everyone (good) uses pace!


----------



## PBL450

Drew Eckhardt said:


> So skip zone 3 entirely.
> 
> Training-intensity distribution during an ironman season: relationship with competition performance.
> 
> 
> 
> AeT is a conversational pace, low Friel zone 2 heart rate. Polarized zone 3 starts at FTP which is high Z4 or the Z4/Z5 split depending on whose zones you use. Z3 tempo is in polarized zone 2.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> 
> 
> Switching to a mostly (I can't resist a weekly 1:15 - 1:30 threshold ride) polarized plan made me faster over longer distances and power didn't increase any slower than with two hard days a week and multiple tempo rides.
> 
> It was better for weight too - instead of plateauing with a lot of extra fat I need to eat more than necessary to sate my hunger in order to maintain weight. Separation in my upper pair of abs and oblique vascularity is good; ab vascularity is a bit too much. 5'9.5", 136-137 pounds


Drew, (sorry to threadjack) I'm interested in your polarized training plans? What does a week, or series of weeks look like?


----------



## pedalbiker

PBL450 said:


> Drew, (sorry to threadjack) I'm interested in your polarized training plans? What does a week, or series of weeks look like?


Polarized training is divided up over the course of a season into an 80/20 percentage of intensity. Meaning 80% of your sessions are easy (like Z2ish) training, and 20% are hard, hard training (like vo2 max and above). It's yet another of many ways to skin the proverbial cat. Not overly impressed by it, especially if you're doing lower hours (even though it's claimed that it still triumphs over time-crunched versions). 

What I've seen multiple times from the internet crowd, however, is that a lot of people trying to follow it don't know what they're doing and try to do 20% of their training hours at a high intensity and all and end up killing themselves. 

At the end of the day, if you want to get better, you go ride more. Period. Throw in a day or two of workouts or challenging group rides and STICK WITH IT over the course of a year (x5) and you will get better. Almost undoubtedly.


----------



## ibericb

For insights about polarized training, try these (some are duplicates, previously noted in this thread):

Presentations:


“Managing The Distribution Of Training Intensity The Polarized Model-1”, S. Seiler, October 2013​

Research Reports:

“Intervals, Thresholds, and Long Slow Distance: the Role of Intensity and Duration in Endurance Training”
Sportscience 13, 32-53, 2009

“What is best practice for training intensity and duration distribution in endurance athletes?”
International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance, 2010, 5, 276-291

“Training Intensity Distribution”
Chapter 4 in Endurance Training: Science and Practice, 1st ed., Vitoria-Gastiez, 2012.

“Adaptations to aerobic interval training: Interactive effects of exercise intensity and total work duration”
SCANDINAVIAN JOURNAL OF MEDICINE AND SCIENCE IN SPORTS, AUGUST 2011​

Compared to other training protocols:

“Lactate Profile Changes in Relation to Training Characteristics in Junior Elite Cyclists”
International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance, 2010, 5, 316-327

“Six weeks of a polarized training-intensity distribution leads to greater physiological
and performance adaptations than a threshold model in trained cyclists”
Journal of Applied Physiology Published 15 February 2013 Vol. 114 no. 4, 461-471 

“Does Polarized Training Improve Performance in Recreational Runners?”
International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance, 2014, 9, 265 -272

“Polarized training has greater impact on key endurance variables than threshold, high intensity or high volume training”
Front. Physiol., 04 February 2014

“Training-Intensity Distribution During an Ironman Season: Relationship With Competition Performance”
International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance, 2014, 9, 332-339​


----------



## Corenfa

pedalbiker said:


> Really? Because most people's hrs are quite a bit elevated in race situations. Plus, how about hot days? Do you account for higher heat and humidity? That has an enormous effect on hr.
> 
> How about cardiac drift? Do you account for that, too? Do you account for variances due to training versus freshness (I've seen 10-15 bpm swings depending on whether or not I'm mid week versus weekend and the correlating fatigue/freshness).
> 
> I can give more examples, but anyway.
> 
> And I said you don't have a clue because your entire hr training seems to be based off numbers you _think are right. W_hile 237 sounds extremely unlikely, there's a huge difference between that and 200. Your hr doesn't just change over 10% depending on whether or not you're fit. So huge problem right there starting out.



Well, my cardiologist would disagree with you. And I can happily show you my data where I've hit 237. However, when I'm at my fittest, hitting 200 is the top of my range. And my overall heart rate lowers throughout the range. 

I'm sorry - what exactly are your qualifications?


----------



## pedalbiker

Corenfa said:


> Well, my cardiologist would disagree with you. And I can happily show you my data where I've hit 237. However, when I'm at my fittest, hitting 200 is the top of my range. And my overall heart rate lowers throughout the range.
> 
> I'm sorry - what exactly are your qualifications?


Data, huh? I can show you data where I've hit 64 mph up a hill and data showing a 2,100 watt sprint, too. And yes, I think I even have polar hr data from 13 years ago showing a 230+ hr. Read between the lines, there, about "data". 

My qualifications? I'm someone that's answering questions about training instead of asking them.


----------



## GlobalGuy

Corenfa said:


> Well, my cardiologist would disagree with you. And I can happily show you my data where I've hit 237. However, when I'm at my fittest, hitting 200 is the top of my range. And my overall heart rate lowers throughout the range.


I must be misunderstanding you. It seems to me you are saying that when you are less fit you MHR is 237 but when you are at your peak fitness your MHR drops to 200?


----------



## Corenfa

Answering them with erroneous information. Wow. Helpful and insightful.


----------



## pedalbiker

.....


----------



## Corenfa

GlobalGuy said:


> I must be misunderstanding you. It seems to me you are saying that when you are less fit you MHR is 237 but when you are at your peak fitness your MHR drops to 200?


Yes. That's correct. The doc says that it's basically because my heart gets better conditioned with work. The higher max heart rate is a factor of being out of shape.


----------



## pedalbiker

Corenfa said:


> Yes. That's correct. The doc says that it's basically because my heart gets better conditioned with work. The higher max heart rate is a factor of being out of shape.


I'd find a new doctor.


----------



## Mengtian

Corenfa said:


> Yes. That's correct. The doc says that it's basically because my heart gets better conditioned with work. The higher max heart rate is a factor of being out of shape.


Do you see a cardiologist for a specific reason? I am no doctor or cardiologist but I have been an endurance athlete for 35 years. What you are saying is to me (and others) very unusual. Can you clarify why you see a cardiologist? That may answer some questions


----------



## ibericb

GlobalGuy said:


> I must be misunderstanding you. It seems to me you are saying that when you are less fit you MHR is 237 but when you are at your peak fitness your MHR drops to 200?


Yes, that's what said. The effect is well known, and has been described in sports med literature, although the magnitude of the change the OP cites is larger than has generally been suggested as typical. It's another one of the details that needs to be understood in using HR for training.


----------



## pedalbiker

ibericb said:


> Yes, that's what said. The effect is well known, and has been described in sports med literature, *although the magnitude of the change the OP cites is larger than has generally been suggested as typical.* It's another one of the details that needs to be understood in using HR for training.


I feel that your use of the word "larger" really fails to depict what's happening. 

What is that, like a 16% decrease? That's not large, that's...dysfunctional. 

Or, as I so heavily alluded to earlier, the OP has some data corruption.

And man, are there ever a ton of details that need to be understood to use hr for training! I genuinely feel that in five years, conversations like this won't exist because everyone will finally let go of the last vestiges of this hr rubbish and move on to something that doesn't have 14,000 qualifiers attached to its data.


----------



## Drew Eckhardt

PBL450 said:


> Drew, (sorry to threadjack) I'm interested in your polarized training plans? What does a week, or series of weeks look like?


Monday - 10 minute intervals as hard as I can sustain which works out to about 110% of FTP for me. That seems to work and in retrospect matches Seiler's studies - his intervals are as hard as sustainable, he opined on slowtwitch.com the sweet spot is 7-10 minutes, and his published study showed bigger power improvements at VO2max/LT4 using 4x8 versus 4x4 or 4x16. Number increasing with fitness - 2x10, 3x10, 4x10. Rest between intervals decreasing with fitness - 10 minutes starting, 5 minutes, 4 minutes. Seiler used 2 minutes RBI in his studies. Enough zone 2 getting to and from someplace outdoors suitable. Except every second week of each mesocycle I skip that in favor of an FTP test plus another ten or twenty minutes past threshold.

Tuesday - shorter endurance ride, 1.5-2 hours, high heart rate zone 2 which matches subjective descriptions of my aerobic threshold, that varies with training from high Coggan/Friel zone 1 to high zone 2. Could reach low Z3.

Wednesday - recovery ride, 1.5-2 hours. Z1. There isn't anything left in my legs and I feel happier riding than not.

Thursday - another short endurance ride switching to a not polarized Z4 ride. 1:15 - 1:30 at 95% of FTP.

Friday - recovery ride following a threshold Thursday, short endurance otherwise.

Saturday - longer endurance ride. 3-4 hours.

Sunday - I don't ride Sundays.

Plus an easy 30 miles weekly bicycle commuting Z1.

One rest week in four. Endurance rides replacing Friel/Coggan Z4/Z5. No time increase. Stress balance going positive.

I broke my collarbone in June, missed three weeks of any riding, and 1:15 six days a week is where my patience ends for trainer rides so I'm back to where I was at for power and volume in March.


----------



## ibericb

pedalbiker said:


> I feel that your use of the word "larger" really fails to depict what's happening.
> 
> What is that, like a 16% decrease? That's not large, that's...dysfunctional.
> 
> Or, as I so heavily alluded to earlier, the OP has some data corruption.
> 
> And man, are there ever a ton of details that need to be understood to use hr for training! I genuinely feel that in five years, conversations like this won't exist because everyone will finally let go of the last vestiges of this hr rubbish and move on to something that doesn't have 14,000 qualifiers attached to its data.


All of the points cited as typical or normal are for large groups or pools of people. There are always outliers, and the OP may just be one. 

If you have data or facts, please bring 'em. Otherwise your points would appear largely baseless.


----------



## Corenfa

Mengtian said:


> Do you see a cardiologist for a specific reason? I am no doctor or cardiologist but I have been an endurance athlete for 35 years. What you are saying is to me (and others) very unusual. Can you clarify why you see a cardiologist? That may answer some questions



Sure - thanks.

So, several years ago, the doctor noticed (forgive me if I get the terminology wrong) Q waves in my EKG as he was monitoring me for a slight arrhythmia. Since then, I've done stress tests at regular intervals (3-5 years). My HR has always been a bit of a joke in the office since it's the highest he had ever seen. That being said, I lived a very sedentary life for a long time. After I got into cycling a few years ago, he said my heart rate was likely to smooth out since it was going to get more conditioning. 

At the start of seasons past (when I would take winters off), I would find that my HR would return to my insane rates. Towards the end of the season, it would even out and get much lower.

My 237 numbers aren't from a Garmin or Polar. They're from the stress tests. Now that I'm riding harder and more, I get more frequent checkups.

FWIW, my brother has the exact same issues. He's a Cat 3 in the midwest.


----------



## pedalbiker

ibericb said:


> All of the points cited as typical or normal are for large groups or pools of people. There are always outliers, and the OP may just be one.
> 
> If you have data or facts, please bring 'em. Otherwise your points would appear largely baseless.


So now a 237 hr is merely an outlier? That's ridiculous. Now maybe he has tachycardia? That might be a real issue. But even if that were the case, he still isn't actually dropping from 237 to 200 due to "fitness". 

Or, maybe he's having data spikes (a known problem with hrms!)

Are you wanting my data of errant data points? Or data on all of the issues with hr variance (which I've given a few already)?

Or are you wanting a lesson on human anatomy and the heart;s adaptations to stress and how it would potentially manifest those adaptations with higher stroke volume and all?

I feel like you're just being pedantic and arguing for the sake of arguing at this point. 

Nothing I've said is baseless and your own posts agree with them (except regarding the fruitlessness of training with hr). You're just stretching your own facts all the way to the point of fiction.


----------



## pedalbiker

Corenfa said:


> Sure - thanks.
> 
> So, several years ago, the doctor noticed (forgive me if I get the terminology wrong) Q waves in my EKG as he was monitoring me for a slight arrhythmia. .



So not even an outlier. A medical condition. 

Boom.


----------



## PBL450

Drew Eckhardt said:


> Monday - 10 minute intervals as hard as I can sustain which works out to about 110% of FTP for me. That seems to work and in retrospect matches Seiler's studies - his intervals are as hard as sustainable, he opined on slowtwitch.com the sweet spot is 7-10 minutes, and his published study showed bigger power improvements at VO2max/LT4 using 4x8 versus 4x4 or 4x16. Rest between intervals decreasing with fitness - 10 minutes starting, 5 minutes, 4 minutes. Seiler used 2 minutes RBI in his studies. Enough zone 2 getting to and from someplace outdoors suitable. Except every second week of each mesocycle I skip that in favor of an FTP test plus another ten or twenty minutes past threshold.
> 
> Tuesday - shorter endurance ride, 1.5-2 hours, high heart rate zone 2 which matches subjective descriptions of my aerobic threshold, that varies with training from high Coggan/Friel zone 1 to high zone 2. Could reach low Z3.
> 
> Wednesday - recovery ride, 1.5-2 hours. Z1. There isn't anything left in my legs and I feel happier riding than not.
> 
> Thursday - another short endurance ride switching to a not polarized Z4 ride. 1:15 - 1:30 at 95% of FTP.
> 
> Friday - recovery ride following a threshold Thursday, short endurance otherwise.
> 
> Saturday - longer endurance ride. 3-4 hours.
> 
> Sunday - I don't ride Sundays.
> 
> Plus an easy 30 miles weekly bicycle commuting Z1.
> 
> One rest week in four. Endurance rides replacing Friel/Coggan Z4/Z5. No time increase. Stress balance going positive.
> 
> I broke my collarbone in June, missed three weeks of any riding, and 1:15 six days a week is where my patience ends for trainer rides so I'm back to where I was at for power and volume in March.


Thank you! I appreciate your sharing and the specificity. This is what I was looking to see. Somehow it makes it more real than a study. Much appreciated!!!


----------



## ibericb

pedalbiker said:


> So now a 237 hr is merely an outlier? That's ridiculous. Now maybe he has tachycardia? That might be a real issue. But even if that were the case, he still isn't actually dropping from 237 to 200 due to "fitness".
> 
> Or, maybe he's having data spikes (a known problem with hrms!)
> 
> Are you wanting my data of errant data points? Or data on all of the issues with hr variance (which I've given a few already)?
> 
> Or are you wanting a lesson on human anatomy and the heart;s adaptations to stress and how it would potentially manifest those adaptations with higher stroke volume and all?
> 
> I feel like you're just being pedantic and arguing for the sake of arguing at this point.
> 
> Nothing I've said is baseless and your own posts agree with them (except regarding the fruitlessness of training with hr). You're just stretching your own facts all the way to the point of fiction.


The OP addressed your point about the data source and the possibility of data spike. Sorry, but you're wrong.

Your opinions and beliefs are noted. I prefer some credible facts and data. You seem to have none.

You can spare me your version of exercise physiology. I suspect I am already well informed relative to anything you would proffer

A point worth clarifying in this discussion for all is terminology - specifically, _maximum heart rate._ Depending on who's using the term it can mean a couple of different things. Most physiologists today use the therm to mean an absolute genetic maximum, not dependent on the one the mode of stress (running, cycling, swimming, etc.). Apart from that the term _peak heart rate_ is also used to describe a maximum that is reached under a particular stress (e.g., cycling). Following that norm, then the true maximum heart rate should not vary with training (stress adaptation), but the peak heart rate can. That variation in peak heart rate (not true maximum heart rate) appears to be what the OP has described and has been determined via medically supervised stress tests.


----------



## pedalbiker

ibericb said:


> The OP addressed your point about the data source and the possibility of data spike. Sorry, but you're wrong.
> 
> Your opinions and beliefs are noted. I prefer some credible facts and data. You seem to have none.
> 
> You can spare me your version of exercise physiology. I suspect I am already well informed relative to anything you would proffer
> 
> A point worth clarifying in this discussion for all is terminology - specifically, _maximum heart rate._ Depending on who's using the term it can mean a couple of different things. Most physiologists today use the therm to mean an absolute genetic maximum, not dependent on the one the mode of stress (running, cycling, swimming, etc.). Apart from that the term _peak heart rate_ is also used to describe a maximum that is reached under a particular stress (e.g., cycling). Following that norm, then the true maximum heart rate should not vary with training (stress adaptation), but the peak heart rate can. That variation in peak heart rate (not true maximum heart rate) appears to be what the OP has described and has been determined via medically supervised stress tests.


Yes, he posted that while I was posting my post. So one of the multiple explanations I posited was wrong, but I was not wrong about THE issue with hrms (and gps and pms, etc) and data spikes and medical issues like tachycardia as being possible explanations So be a little more honest in your word choice, please. 

Do you not see the irony in the fact that your "facts" already match what I've posted? Read a little. Go back and read what you wrote and instead of the mental gymnastics about outliers, consider what you're saying. 

And your last paragraph so wonderfully illustrates the point I've been hashing out all along. The op is trying to base training zones off of this gargantuan amount of hr b.s. 

Is that not lost on you? Surely I'm beating a dead horse back to death again, but if this entire thread doesn't address all of the issues with hr and put it on a pedestal for you to step back and consider, then nothing will. 

Wow!


----------



## ibericb

When you bring some meaningful facts, and a deeper understanding, I'm all ears.


----------



## pedalbiker

ibericb said:


> When you bring some meaningful facts, and a deeper understanding, I'm all ears.


You repeating that over and over merely illustrates the fact that you have nothing more to contribute and you have nothing left to argue about. And me repeating the same things over and over again is just tiresome.

I've already asked you what facts you want and you just balked at the question. So it seems that you want to believe in outliers and have me buy into that as well as an explanation for this. The problem is that there are outliers and then there are other things. This is one of those other things. And the OP said as much. 

So in all seriousness, what exactly is it that you want again? Quit peddling your quips about facts and all and address actual points.


----------



## Corenfa

pedalbiker said:


> You repeating that over and over merely illustrates the fact that you have nothing more to contribute and you have nothing left to argue about. And me repeating the same things over and over again is just tiresome.


Irony.

Just. Irony.


----------



## pedalbiker

Corenfa said:


> Irony.
> 
> Just. Irony.


Except I actually address specific things, and he just throws up the same line over and over again. 


Anyway, my only question to you is...

How's that hr training plan coming along? 

Yikes.


----------



## PBL450

pedalbiker said:


> Just because they don't have a more accurate means of measuring workload doesn't mean that they couldn't measure training more optimally with something other than hr (none of that is to say they could or would train more optimally, because at that level... yeah, they're probably doing just about all they can do, regardless of how it's measured).
> 
> Why are you going on about other sports, anyway? Absolutely massive strawman you're creating, there.
> 
> HR doesn't hold a candle to power based training for umteen amounts of reasons.
> 
> Same thing with running, which is why everyone (good) uses pace!


HRM is a tool. Used properly it is a great training tool. No straw man going on there?? Other athletes use HR and achieve great results and build highly effective training plans. Power is available (uniquely) to cyclists and it is can be a valuable metric. But it is a tool just like HR. Given that its application is sport specific, its value should be viewed with a degree research suspicion when being compared to HR which is used in a multitude of applications. No straw man going on... Just solid validity and reliability questions? I certainly understand your complete commitment to power meter superiority, you probably paid a serious price for the device. That would clearly make you biased toward a perceived perfection in that modality. That's human nature. Otherwise you are an asshat to spend that kind of money without certainties or guarantees of absolute advantages... Bottom line? You bring nothing at all to make your point but gasbag posts devoid of any supportive data.


----------



## Corenfa

pedalbiker said:


> Except I actually address specific things, and he just throws up the same line over and over again.
> 
> 
> Anyway, my only question to you is...
> 
> How's that hr training plan coming along?
> 
> Yikes.


Actually, pretty good. Thanks.


----------



## pedalbiker

PBL450 said:


> HRM is a tool. Used properly it is a great training tool. No straw man going on there?? Other athletes use HR and achieve great results and build highly effective training plans. Power is available (uniquely) to cyclists and it is can be a valuable metric. But it is a tool just like HR. Given that its application is sport specific, its value should be viewed with a degree research suspicion when being compared to HR which is used in a multitude of applications. No straw man going on... Just solid validity and reliability questions? I certainly understand your complete commitment to power meter superiority, you probably paid a serious price for the device. That would clearly make you biased toward a perceived perfection in that modality. That's human nature. Otherwise you are an asshat to spend that kind of money without certainties or guarantees of absolute advantages... Bottom line? You bring nothing at all to make your point but gasbag posts devoid of any supportive data.


Question: if you have one training tool at your disposal, a hrm or a powermeter, which one would you choose and why? 

Because I feel that the point I'm making is being missed. And if that's the case, then I'm apparently communicating it badly. 

So seeing as we have the ability to use both "tools", why is one better than another? 

I used hr training (purchasing 4-5 different hrms over that time period) for six or seven years, moving from a cat 5 to a cat 1 early on in that time period. Plus I got two of my powermeters for free and have only used them for three years (not moving past a Cat 1 ). So if anything, I'm much more heavily invested in hr training. 

As for the gasbag bit, has anything I've said about the issues with hr training been false or misleading in any way? Can you address the hr variance that I've mentioned multiple times? 

In all seriousness, please do so. It seems you and iberich keep trying to paint me as an uneducated, inexperienced charlatan who makes vacuous posts because I'm a vehement anti-heart-rate-ite.
*
But throughout this entire thread, no one has actually refuted any of the hr shortcomings that I have asserted. Why is that? *


----------



## pedalbiker

Corenfa said:


> Actually, pretty good. Thanks.


Then this thread hasn't been a monumental waste of time/dick waving contest. 

See, all is good and well, Corenfa. You'll be back to snagging KOMs from wanker cheaters in no time.


----------



## Corenfa

pedalbiker said:


> Then this thread hasn't been a monumental waste of time/dick waving contest.
> 
> See, all is good and well, Corenfa. You'll be back to snagging KOMs from wanker cheaters in no time.


Gee thanks. I'm really glad you're here to educate all of us on how we aren't quite able to bask in your awesomeness. I really do hope that, one day, you win the Internet. You're well on your way.


----------



## pedalbiker

Corenfa said:


> Gee thanks. I'm really glad you're here to educate all of us on how we aren't quite able to bask in your awesomeness. I really do hope that, one day, you win the Internet. You're well on your way.


_On the contrary, bud, I don't want you to bask in my awesomeness. I want you to be awesome yourself. A rising tide and all...

Besides, I won the internet a long time ago. Ever debated religion? Ha. Makes this stuff look like child's play.

_Edited to add italics in case corenfa still thinks I'm being serious. _
_


----------



## ibericb

pedalbiker said:


> Question: if you have one training tool at your disposal, a hrm or a powermeter, which one would you choose and why?


That would depend entirely on the objectives for training, and the knowledge or support for using either. Both are useful, and both have their merits as well as their limitations and problems. Neither is perfect or a complete answer in itself. They tell you different things, both of which are insightful and useful for training.



> Because I feel that the point I'm making is being missed. And if that's the case, then I'm apparently communicating it badly.
> 
> So seeing as we have the ability to use both "tools", why is one better than another?


Research efforts to determine the better choice have found that neither is superior, they are just different. As I noted in my first post in this thread, the best combination (most complete and comprehensive) is to use both together (which is exactly what top elite competitive cyclists are doing). But that requires some depth of understanding that seems to elude most unsupported or amateur users. In that sense a power meter seems to be the easier of the two to use. That doesn't make it better.



> But throughout this entire thread, no one has actually refuted any of the hr shortcomings that I have asserted. Why is that?


No, not at all. In fact they've been well recognized long before you pointed them out. But you've used those shortcoming to cast HRM's as useless. Further, you have ignored completely the weaknesses and shortcomings of power meters, leaving a very one-sided view. What's been refuted are not the shortcomings, but rather the dismissive conclusions you've cast about HRM's broadly, which is misguided.


----------



## pedalbiker

ibericb said:


> No, not at all. In fact they've been well recognized long before you pointed them out. But you've used those shortcoming to cast HRM's as useless. Further, you have ignored completely the weaknesses and shortcomings of power meters, leaving a very one-sided view. What's been refuted are not the shortcomings, but rather the dismissive conclusions you've cast about HRM's broadly, which is misguided.


Okay, iberich! 

I get it now and my initial concern about communicating my points badly has been validated. So thank you for that. 

I do not actually think hrms are useless even though I may have come across as believing that initially. If a power meter is not available, then I would certainly advocate their use. I do, however, feel they are inferior for a myriad of reasons and while they may give useful information, they give a physiological reaction that will differ under a number of circumstances and must be accounted for.

And while you and I obviously differ in our opinions of their usefulness, I do not wish to opine that they are entirely useless. 

Though again, I don't think many top elite cyclists are using both. I don't see a lot of pros using them (though to be sure, there are some). And I certainly don't see elite runners using them. And I still truly believe hr training will fall by the wayside in a few more years, just has it has steadily decreased in the last decade in favor of power training. 

Anyway, good talk.


----------



## ibericb

Maybe HRM's will fall by the wayside in a few years. I'm certainly not clairvoyant, but I tend to think that instead what we will see are more sophisticated training systems (algorithms) that combine both and are easy for the amateur to use.


----------



## duriel

Drew Eckhardt said:


> Thursday - another short endurance ride switching to a not polarized Z4 ride. 1:15 - 1:30 at 95% of FTP.


What is a non-polarized Z4 ride, specifically?
And what makes it non-polarized, if it isn't covered in the above.


----------



## Drew Eckhardt

duriel said:


> What is a non-polarized Z4 ride, specifically?
> And what makes it non-polarized, if it isn't covered in the above.


Polarized training calls for 80% of sessions below your aerobic threshold (which is probably somewhere in Friel's Z2) and 20% above your anaerobic threshold (100% of FTP, lactate threshold heart rate, 4mmol/L lactate).

95% of FTP is neither and arguably non-polarized.

That's polarized Z2 which is too easily confused with Z2 endurance ride among people used to 5-zone systems. It's Z4 in Friel and Coggan's systems which are most popular among cyclists.


----------



## duriel

All of those zones are confusing. You should standardize them.

OK, thanks, so he could have just left the 'non-polarized' adjective out of the sentance with the use of 'Z4' . I was wondering how you would polarize that specific zone. I think it made it more confusing.


----------



## ibericb

duriel said:


> All of those zones are confusing. You should standardize them.
> 
> OK, thanks, so he could have just left the 'non-polarized' adjective out of the sentance with the use of 'Z4' . I was wondering how you would polarize that specific zone. I think it made it more confusing.


The problem with "zones" is that there are about 4 variations of diving the range depending on who's doing the dividing. While Coggan, Friel, et al are the most typical is the U.S., they are NOT universal.

As soon as any "zone 4" is mentioned it's a pretty sure bet that it will be a departure from Seiler's polarized training model.


----------

