Interesting Article on HRM's

cloggsy71

I've just read this article (http://www.bikeradar.com/fitness/article/heart-rate-monitor-training-for-cyclists-28838/) on Bike Radar about HRM's - very interesting I thought...

Have a read and see what you think

TheBigYin

I read that when it was originally published in Cycling Plus Magazine, quite a while ago. To be honest, it's almost to the letter how I've been using my HR monitor - he's right about the "humility" it requires, when you set out for a "base level" ride - zone 1 or 2 in the description, it takes some serious will-power not to just "knock it up a gear" or to get out of the saddle and push it a bit on that last hill - especially if it means getting home before the rain starts in february...

I was very sceptical about how riding at under 75% of MHR would improve my riding, but, probably 85% of my ride time is under that now. In the last year I've managed to increase my average ride distance from 13.5 miles @ 12mph to 33.9miles @14.2mph, while increasing the distance climbed in the ride by nearly 4x - i.e. I'm going further, faster and climbing better - whilst in the process managing to lose 139lb (mainly, I have to say, via exercise - as anyone who checks my diary will vouch for - it's rare that I eat under 2,000kcals!)

easfahl

Bump for a read later.

Frannybobs

Thanks for posting this - it's absolutely fascinating. I have had a Polar HRM a while and was guilty of just using it for calories burned and thinking the higher my heart rate the better. When I was at a gym I did used to do fat burning cross trainer workouts for half an hour at a time, but always felt like it was a cop-out as I didn't look like I was working as hard as anyone else.

I have recently bought a Garmin Edge 800 and it does do this sort of heart rate zone training so I think I will definitely look into it further. I am doing a 100km event on 2nd September so have about 6 weeks to come up with a training plan. I had never thought about heart rate zones on a bike as my route to work is hilly and you have to work hard, so perhaps lower the gears to keep heart rate down if I'm doing a long ride in Zone 2 or 3.

Brilliant - gives me a focussed training plan other than what I had in mind, cycle to work about 3 times a week (12 mile round journey) and a longer ride at weekends. I am capable of doing the 100km already really as I cycle fairly regularly but we all have a quest to be better, faster, fitter and leaner so I'm going to give it a try! Cheers Clogsy

scott091501

I thought this was common knowledge? HR training is great and an absolute must for anyone who even wants to think about maximizing their potential. Even better for cyclists is training by power. Power meters don't lie while at times your HR is a lagging indicator of exertion.

TheBigYin

I thought this was common knowledge?

Well - bearing in mind, the last time I did any "training" per se, was upwards of 20+ years ago, and HRM's were the province of (some of the more foreward-thinking) Pro teams, frankly, it was quite an informative thing to read - and did actually sit pretty well with the old maxims of my training - that 80% of your work should be long steady distance stuff. The fact that it actually agreed, and gave a metric that ensured that you were doing "steady" rather than "slow" or, indeed going too hard was great. Perhaps it may "be common knowledge" in some circles - I'm sure triathletes and decent club standard racing cyclists will think it obvious, however, as this is a more general fitness site, with lots of people taking up riding "just to help lose a few lb's" perhaps you shouldn't be so condescending / dismissive of the information presented by the OP.

While I agree 100% that training with power is probably the "gold standard" in terms of getting the maximum bang for the buck, frankly, for someone of my current level of fitness, spending £2500 on a SRM rig is a little like a homeless person hiring an accountant to tell him he's broke! I do occasionally borrow a Cycleops powertap rear wheel from a friend and run a "how am I progressing" test - nothing particularly scientific, just a 20km lap around familiar roads, which are quiet enough to "give it the beans" on and the improvement in my times, speeds and power output have been reasonably gratifying. That said, laying out £1000 on a rear wheel that's as fragile/unreliable as the powertaps are is about as appealing as a bowl of cold sick! Said powertap wheel of my friends has gone tits-up 3 times in the last 2 years, and is currently back with the distributors having some widget or doohickey fixed. Not for me - I'm a big lad, I put lots of torque through things like wheels, and have a habit of ripping normal shimano freehubs to bits. Any power sensor I might get at a future date, is going to have to be in the cranks I think.

TDGee

But it's SO HARD to not drop the hammer on those other cyclists who didn't know we were racing to the next stoplight!! *whine!* :sad:

lisapr123

Bump!

scott091501

I thought this was common knowledge?

Well - bearing in mind, the last time I did any "training" per se, was upwards of 20+ years ago, and HRM's were the province of (some of the more foreward-thinking) Pro teams, frankly, it was quite an informative thing to read - and did actually sit pretty well with the old maxims of my training - that 80% of your work should be long steady distance stuff. The fact that it actually agreed, and gave a metric that ensured that you were doing "steady" rather than "slow" or, indeed going too hard was great. Perhaps it may "be common knowledge" in some circles - I'm sure triathletes and decent club standard racing cyclists will think it obvious, however, as this is a more general fitness site, with lots of people taking up riding "just to help lose a few lb's" perhaps you shouldn't be so condescending / dismissive of the information presented by the OP.

While I agree 100% that training with power is probably the "gold standard" in terms of getting the maximum bang for the buck, frankly, for someone of my current level of fitness, spending £2500 on a SRM rig is a little like a homeless person hiring an accountant to tell him he's broke! I do occasionally borrow a Cycleops powertap rear wheel from a friend and run a "how am I progressing" test - nothing particularly scientific, just a 20km lap around familiar roads, which are quiet enough to "give it the beans" on and the improvement in my times, speeds and power output have been reasonably gratifying. That said, laying out £1000 on a rear wheel that's as fragile/unreliable as the powertaps are is about as appealing as a bowl of cold sick! Said powertap wheel of my friends has gone tits-up 3 times in the last 2 years, and is currently back with the distributors having some widget or doohickey fixed. Not for me - I'm a big lad, I put lots of torque through things like wheels, and have a habit of ripping normal shimano freehubs to bits. Any power sensor I might get at a future date, is going to have to be in the cranks I think.

Condescending?? Um....... ok. I really just thought it was common knowledge. It really applies to any form of cardio (biking, running, stairclimber, whatever). Training in lower (aerobic) HR zones expands your aerobic capacity and burns fat at a higher rate than working near your threshold. Eventually you begin to be able to do the same amount of work at a lower HR.

As far as a better option of crank based power look at Quarqs. Just as good as SRM in my opinion, cheaper, and made in conjunction with SRAM.

Frannybobs

I have done some extra reading up on this and am going to give it a go...

65% to 75% seems to be in the middle of fat burning and aerobic improvement, as I'd like both benefits, so going to try and do these longer rides at weekends and keep my heart rate down to within that range, and then use my commute to work (only 6 miles) to push myself over the short rides.

Don't know why I'd never thought of HR training for cycling - especially as it would be easy to do with my new Garmin Edge 800. Well it would be if I could get my HRM to work properly. Never had an issue with my Polar FT4 one but last couple of rides with the Garmin it's just been showing silly numbers 50bpm. I've been using the Polar strap as recommended on a couple of sites, but I have now tightened up, will make sure to anti-static my tops and have even ordered some conductive gel. I'm sure one of those will work!!

TheBigYin

I have done some extra reading up on this and am going to give it a go...

65% to 75% seems to be in the middle of fat burning and aerobic improvement, as I'd like both benefits, so going to try and do these longer rides at weekends and keep my heart rate down to within that range, and then use my commute to work (only 6 miles) to push myself over the short rides.

Don't know why I'd never thought of HR training for cycling - especially as it would be easy to do with my new Garmin Edge 800. Well it would be if I could get my HRM to work properly. Never had an issue with my Polar FT4 one but last couple of rides with the Garmin it's just been showing silly numbers 50bpm. I've been using the Polar strap as recommended on a couple of sites, but I have now tightened up, will make sure to anti-static my tops and have even ordered some conductive gel. I'm sure one of those will work!!

Make sure the HR strap is the right way up - i've found that when I've put it on upside down by accident, it miss-reads badly - I did an entire set of hill rep's and couldn't get my HR reading above 90...

Cmonnowguys

Thanks for this!