# CTS Field Test HR Results



## Walmco (Feb 12, 2010)

To provide a little background, I have been cycling for recreation and doing some training (by no means regimented) for a little over a year. This past November I took the LTHR test in the Cyclist Training Bible (the 30 minute time-trial effort, the last 20 minutes of which are used to approximate LTHR). My average HR for that last 20 minutes was 170 bpm, which made sense to me. I based the light training I have done since then off of that.

I'm planning on starting the TCTP next week using HR zones (don't have a power meter). Yesterday I completed the CTS field test on an indoor trainer, and I'm a little confused by the results. 

For both of the 8-minute intervals my average HR was 163 bpm (results pictured below, hopefully). As you can see, it took a little while to get my HR up, and I was pacing myself somewhat during the middle of each interval. I recognize the CTS test is not a measure of LTHR, but rather a way to establish training intensities. However, my impression from reading the TCTP was that the CTS test results were assumed to be higher than LT and that was factored into the percentages used calculate training intensities. When I apply these percentages to my CTS result I come up with intensities that seem too low to be effective based on my experience with RPE in these zones.

My question is, does it make sense that my CTS result would be lower than my approximated LTHR? Admittedly, I could have gone marginally harder during the CTS tests, but I dont think it would have increased my average HR by more than 2 to 5 bpm. I was pretty spent at the end of each. What am I missing?

Any advice would be appreciated.


----------



## Creakyknees (Sep 21, 2003)

I suspect you are experiencing the variability that comes from using HR. Different days, fatigue levels, indoor vs outdoor, hydration, sleep deficits... so many things influence HR and perceived exertion. 

With experience you'll get better at using these factors to understand your true training load vs "just needing to htfu". I think for now, try to use the numbers you set last November and don't beat yourself up if you can't quite get there - odds are that you were fitter then than you are now (after a winter of less riding).

Also if you did the Nov test outside and the recent work inside, that really effects PE for most people - I can always get higher bpm's when riding outside.

/ edit to add, one of the defining characteristics of "threshold" when using HR, is that as you increase effort, hr approaches the number then spikes rapidly as you go over the threshold. In my case, if my "threshold" is 167, I know that I can ride hard and steady at 16-165 for a while, gradually drifting up towards 167 ish, but if I upshift and try to go a bit faster, it'll rapidly spike to 170+... that's how I know i've passed "threshold"

note: I used "quotes" around "threshold' because it can be a fuzzy definition sometimes, but with HR you have to get used to dealing with a zone instead of a hard number.


----------



## Rugergundog (Apr 2, 2011)

Walmco: I am on my first week of the CTCTP and also have a average of 170 bpm from the test trials.

From what i understand from reading the rational behind the 8min intervals and looking at your HR data, I "think"...you may not have been at a high enough starting HR, did not dig into the interval quick enough or did not exert yourself completely during the interval. No insults or passing judgments...so please don't take it that way, just trying to make sense from what i have in front of me.

As for when i did my 8 minute intervals. When i began them I just finished the outlined workout and my body was warmed up and my HR already elevated a moderate level. I did my intervals on a spinner bike indoors as well. When i started the intervals i had to crank up the tension and hammer the pedals to get my heart rate up in a hurry. As my HR began to elevate and into the first minute of the interval(s) I had a good idea of how far i could back off the tension to a level that would difficult but that i could prob finish 8min at 90rpm. Now i had to play with my tension a few times to do my best to keep my rpm at 90 and to keep my legs from complete shut down and my stomach from spilling my lunch on my bike. At the end of the intervals my Max HR was well up into the high 170's.....however my average came out to 169bpm. (i rounded up to 170). 

The book does a good job explaining why 8 min is picked for the time if you revisit that chapter.

I just finished the first 4 workouts of week 1 of the CTP.....and wheew; my numbers are accurate as during the intervals im smoked at the end...but i can finish them.

Bob


----------



## Rugergundog (Apr 2, 2011)

Actually after looking at your HR's a bit more I think your HR data makes it appear as you could have gone a bit harder. It "appears" that your fitness level held down your HR a bit for the first 4min or so of each interval. So maybe your perception that you could have gone harder is accurate.


----------



## Walmco (Feb 12, 2010)

Thanks for the responses. No offense taken, I appreciate the input. And just to clarify, I did the November LTHR test on the trainer as well under similar conditions.

I believe the lower HR in the CTS test is a result of starting from a recovery period at a low HR vs. starting after 10 minutes of TT effort. What's more, I tried to start each interval as Carmichel suggests in the book - taking 45 seconds to build up to speed - and as a result my HR takes a while to get to the 165 - 170 range. This really brought down the average.

My understanding of the rationale behind the 8 minute intervals is that its simply more practical than a full 60-minute TT. You can generate higher average power for an 8 minute period than for a 60 minute period, and the TCPT zones factor in a "haircut" that adjusts for that.

My confusion is around the HR measurement, specifically how the lag in getting HR up during an interval as short as 8 minutes really skews down the average HR for that period. Is it expected that, similar to power, you can ride at a HR much higher than LT for those 8 minutes, and that would be enough to more than offset the lag in HR and bring the CTS test result above the LTHR? Has anyone had a similar experience comparing their estimated LTHR to their results from the CTS test?

Just to say I tried, I think I'll give it another go this weekend, trying to get to a point just before I lose my lunch.


----------



## Rugergundog (Apr 2, 2011)

Yes I "think" the rational is what you are thinking. That the period at or above LT will come into play.

For sure, maybe just do one more of the 8min intervals. If the average comes out close to your other two call it a day........if its quite a bit off, burn out the second interval.


Interesting that you came up with the same average as I did. How old are you?
Bob


----------



## Walmco (Feb 12, 2010)

My CTS result came out at 163, which I thought was too low. I'm 27.

By the way, glad to hear your first week of TCTP is underway and was successful. I'll look forward to seeing your progress and hearing about the suffering I can expect.


----------



## slegros (Sep 22, 2009)

I wouldn't worry too much. The Field test HR only applies to the days when you are doing SS and OU intervals. The SEPI, and PFPI days are flat out, and they account for a lot of the program.... 

The point of the SS days is to be at high effort but below LTHR, and on the OU days, move from SS to CR pace, and CR pace is JUST BELOW LTHR. So even if you think your field test HR is a tad low it's a small error, its on the side of caution, and one that I seriously doubt will affect your overall results from the program.... 

As others have said it may be due to the point in the season as well. I'd say you're probably fine using 163.

To give you an idea, my experience of the SS days is that I feel worked, but not wasted afterwards, and that I still have some gas left in the tank if that makes sense. If you feel wasted after an SS day-like you went all out-you're probably going too hard on those days IMO.


----------



## Rugergundog (Apr 2, 2011)

Yea, if you are 27 and have a fair level of fitness i suspect those numbers are low. Im darn near 37; and though i have extensive history of intense running...ive not been working out for years and I pulled 170.

I would redo the tests and bust your butt!


----------



## Schmack (Mar 25, 2009)

You may also contribute some of this to cardiac drift for the longer interval. I've done the field tests both ways, long and short, and almost always come up with a higher number for the long test. You'll notice that as you sit in at a given power or rpe, you HR will slowly drift up.

My best adivce would be, if you are using a CTS program use their test. I trained like this indoors for most of the winter. I went to a CTS camp in the spring and my outdoor feild test results were very consistent with what I was able to do inside. If you look closely at some of their stuff, I think they also indicate that an important part of the test is to confirm the numbers with some SS or CR intervals.


----------



## Walmco (Feb 12, 2010)

Thanks Schmack. I searched for something discussing verification of CTS numbers and found this article:

http://www.trainright.com/news.asp?uid=3133

Thought this was pretty interesting, and it partially addresses my concern with my result. It sounds like it often takes two or more tries to get to the right CTS test result. I'll give the test another shot and try this verification if it still seems too low.


----------



## Rugergundog (Apr 2, 2011)

Yea, good article. The last two lines sum it up. There is that sense of "unknown" for how hard you can sustain for 8min for a person doing these tests for the first time and they may may reserve some in fear of going too hard....conversely they could blow up 5 minutes into it. I know having done them and also having completed the first to SS workouts that are composed of 8min intervals i have a better understanding of the effort i can sustain for 8min than i did prior to the workouts.

I also agree that the SS workouts are gonna leave you tired and smoked; but not blown up. The workouts i just did were composed of 3 8min intervals with a 5min spin between..though i was blowing some smoke that last few minutes......after that rest i was well recovered and i prob could have done more than 3 intervals at the SS pace.

Just making an educated guess im betting that your average should be more around 175-178.


----------



## hrumpole (Jun 17, 2008)

Creakyknees said:


> Also if you did the Nov test outside and the recent work inside, that really effects PE for most people - I can always get higher bpm's when riding outside.
> 
> / edit to add, one of the defining characteristics of "threshold" when using HR, is that as you increase effort, hr approaches the number then spikes rapidly as you go over the threshold. In my case, if my "threshold" is 167, I know that I can ride hard and steady at 16-165 for a while, gradually drifting up towards 167 ish, but if I upshift and try to go a bit faster, it'll rapidly spike to 170+... that's how I know i've passed "threshold"
> 
> note: I used "quotes" around "threshold' because it can be a fuzzy definition sometimes, but with HR you have to get used to dealing with a zone instead of a hard number.



This. On the trainer indoors, LT=158-161. Miserable at 169. Outside: LT=163-4. When going all out easily crack 170, and see bpm north of 173. So take with a grain of salt. Also realize that HR drifts with each interval (at least, it does for me).


----------



## Schmack (Mar 25, 2009)

The other thing to keep in mind is that different zones do not turn on and off like a switch, rather the transition from one to another is a gradient. For example, my threshold value, based on both indoor and outdoor CTS tests, is 174. This does not mean when I hit 174 I go anearobic, it's a progression. The point here is, you get as close as you can with HR and work on it. There are a ton of other variables that can influence this, but without power it's a pretty good measure of your effort.

I train with HR all the time and when I recently spent some time with a power tap I found that my HR zones are pretty right on with the corresponding power zones.


----------

