Tempo Training

[jagrazor]

When most people tempo train they do a test then go @ a certain percentage of the HR achieved or the average of the HR on that test. Max HR percentage or some other way of testing to find "zones"

Would it be smarter to start @ a lower HR like for instance if I have a max HR above 200BPM, then starting my "tempo rides" at 140-145 then increasing over time up to 160bpm during the ride.

http://www.ffh.us/cn/hadd.htm This theory is suggested (for runners, but distance runners, Similar animals to cyclists)

The quick way to explain what hes says in several pages is that you start at one level and once you get to the point that you feel you could do 2x the distance @ the same HR then you move up to a new HR. He explains that this way you are going to the bottom of the tube of toothpaste (your potential) and squeezing as much out as possible. He uses a 10 Mile run for his tempo workouts. This is about half the distance of a marathon (a little less) so would a cyclist want to go just a little under half his or her race distance for there tempo rides following the same guidelines?

This is an example of the HR "levels"

140-145
145-150
150-155
155-160
after that he suggests doing one run @ 165 per week and the other 2 workouts @ 160.

Obviously this isnt how you would train all year round, but duringthe base period you might take some of this into your training. Instead of doing 160bpm and increasing distance, you might start at the goal distance and slowly increase intensity?

It almost makes sense with another topic, increasing volume. First you would increase to a level of volume, then you would increase the intensity (get used to that volume in a sense) then you could increase the volume again. (of course this would either be something you do instead of peaking or only during the winter/early spring months nov-april/may

 

[Smartt/RST]

When most people tempo train they do a test then go @ a certain percentage of the HR achieved or the average of the HR on that test. Max HR percentage or some other way of testing to find "zones"

Would it be smarter to start @ a lower HR like for instance if I have a max HR above 200BPM, then starting my "tempo rides" at 140-145 then increasing over time up to 160bpm during the ride.

http://www.ffh.us/cn/hadd.htm This theory is suggested (for runners, but distance runners, Similar animals to cyclists)

The quick way to explain what hes says in several pages is that you start at one level and once you get to the point that you feel you could do 2x the distance @ the same HR then you move up to a new HR. He explains that this way you are going to the bottom of the tube of toothpaste (your potential) and squeezing as much out as possible. He uses a 10 Mile run for his tempo workouts. This is about half the distance of a marathon (a little less) so would a cyclist want to go just a little under half his or her race distance for there tempo rides following the same guidelines?

This is an example of the HR "levels"

140-145
145-150
150-155
155-160
after that he suggests doing one run @ 165 per week and the other 2 workouts @ 160.

Obviously this isnt how you would train all year round, but duringthe base period you might take some of this into your training. Instead of doing 160bpm and increasing distance, you might start at the goal distance and slowly increase intensity?

It almost makes sense with another topic, increasing volume. First you would increase to a level of volume, then you would increase the intensity (get used to that volume in a sense) then you could increase the volume again. (of course this would either be something you do instead of peaking or only during the winter/early spring months nov-april/may

Just based on your summary, it simply sounds like a twist of language (i.e.: a symantics issue).
First off, how do you define "tempo"? And I don't see how the definition, whatever someone decides it to be, can change over the course of the year or over a range of intensities. i.e.: if tempo is = 75-80% of max HR, then at 65-70% of max HR, you're not at tempo anymore...did I miss something here, or is it that obvious? Yes, a lower intensity may be more appropriate at a certain time of the year, but that's all it is, a lower intensity, which would no longer be tempo.
I define "tempo" as an intensity that can be maintained for about 2-3hrs. Yes, a person's fitness will vary over the course of the year (which is why everyone starts with a focus on endurance work and moves up from there), but I certainly wouldn't measure their fitness with heart rate. HR is just an indirect measure of work load, which happens to also be influenced heavily by many other factors, and can't be used to "measure" fitness.
In other words, such a plan is simply a progression of intensity, just like any other, but just seems to use the same term for multiple intensities.
Hell, I don't get it at all. But of course, I didn't read the link...way too long.
As for incorporating distance, this is much more appropriate for runners than it is for cyclists due to the large effect of wind and hills on distance covered in road cycling vs time.

 

[jagrazor]

Just based on your summary, it simply sounds like a twist of language (i.e.: a symantics issue).
First off, how do you define "tempo"? And I don't see how the definition, whatever someone decides it to be, can change over the course of the year or over a range of intensities. i.e.: if tempo is = 75-80% of max HR, then at 65-70% of max HR, you're not at tempo anymore...did I miss something here, or is it that obvious? Yes, a lower intensity may be more appropriate at a certain time of the year, but that's all it is, a lower intensity, which would no longer be tempo.
I define "tempo" as an intensity that can be maintained for about 2-3hrs. Yes, a person's fitness will vary over the course of the year (which is why everyone starts with a focus on endurance work and moves up from there), but I certainly wouldn't measure their fitness with heart rate. HR is just an indirect measure of work load, which happens to also be influenced heavily by many other factors, and can't be used to "measure" fitness.
In other words, such a plan is simply a progression of intensity, just like any other, but just seems to use the same term for multiple intensities.
Hell, I don't get it at all. But of course, I didn't read the link...way too long.
As for incorporating distance, this is much more appropriate for runners than it is for cyclists due to the large effect of wind and hills on distance covered in road cycling vs time.

yeah you would have to read the link I think.... it's a good read, you would enjoy it.

What Hadd says is that by building a tempo run not in volume but in intensity, you will have a better end result. He more or less claims that running @ 160bpm or whatever your theoretical Threshold HR is, will be less effective than building up to it over time and getting as much improvement as you can from the lower HR levels, that are still above normal "endurance" running. 145-155 for instance

 

[ric_stern/RST]

yeah you would have to read the link I think.... it's a good read, you would enjoy it.

What Hadd says is that by building a tempo run not in volume but in intensity, you will have a better end result. He more or less claims that running @ 160bpm or whatever your theoretical Threshold HR is, will be less effective than building up to it over time and getting as much improvement as you can from the lower HR levels, that are still above normal "endurance" running. 145-155 for instance

as michael said. Hadd, seems to be calling multiple intensities one intensity.

 

[jagrazor]

as michael said. Hadd, seems to be calling multiple intensities one intensity.

He really isn't calling multiple intensities the same thing. Just read it and then you will understand

 

[jagrazor]

He really isn't calling multiple intensities the same thing. Just read it and then you will understand

what i mean is, i can't explain what took him like 4 pages in only a few posts..

 

[grchester]

what i mean is, i can't explain what took him like 4 pages in only a few posts..

In a pretty long winded disertation he has basically described how he invented a form of what any cycling coach would call "periodization". He uses "tempo" in an entirely different way than the word is used in cycling coaching, where it usually refers to training zone 3, sub threshold. It is good information, which can be found in any good training book. The real key is to identify where you are in the development your cycling capabilities, and then to define a program to improve upon base.

 

[ric_stern/RST]

what i mean is, i can't explain what took him like 4 pages in only a few posts..

i got bored, it was some of the most long winded rubbish i've seen in a while. by part 3, he's basing his training ideas on concepts that are just plain wrong and studies that haven't been conducted 'correctly' or at least he's using research to point to what he wants to (rather than what it does).

i'd start looking at something more up to date, and if you want some scientific explanation to go with the coaching, then read something by someone who is degreed in exercise physiology or sports science.

ric

 

[Orange Fish]

The quick way to explain what hes says in several pages is that you start at one level and once you get to the point that you feel you could do 2x the distance @ the same HR then you move up to a new HR. He explains that this way you are going to the bottom of the tube of toothpaste (your potential) and squeezing as much out as possible. He uses a 10 Mile run for his tempo workouts. This is about half the distance of a marathon (a little less) so would a cyclist want to go just a little under half his or her race distance for there tempo rides following the same guidelines?

This is an example of the HR "levels"

140-145
145-150
150-155
155-160
after that he suggests doing one run @ 165 per week and the other 2 workouts @ 160.

Sounds like the way to go. I don't know if a trained person would actually have a tempo HR of only 140-145, but the range of 5bpm sounds pretty good. You definitely want a tight range for that type of workout.

I don't know what the confusion is all about though. From my understanding of it, if someone had a Tempo HR range of 140-145, they would run that distance to the point at which they feel comfortable to run 2x that distance at that same HR range, and then it would be time to move up to 145-150...sounds like periodization to me. Although I did get pretty bored reading it...holy **** was that TOO long.

 

[jagrazor]

Sounds like the way to go. I don't know if a trained person would actually have a tempo HR of only 140-145, but the range of 5bpm sounds pretty good. You definitely want a tight range for that type of workout.

I don't know what the confusion is all about though. From my understanding of it, if someone had a Tempo HR range of 140-145, they would run that distance to the point at which they feel comfortable to run 2x that distance at that same HR range, and then it would be time to move up to 145-150...sounds like periodization to me. Although I did get pretty bored reading it...holy **** was that TOO long.

I would say your a little off, but not to far off. Unless your saying exactly what I am about to say.

If a person has a max hr of over 200 then typically your "tempo" hr would be set at around 160-170 somewhere in there. Then you would start with a short tempo. Like 20 minutes and slowly increase the time spent @ 160-170. eventually getting to whatever time..

What he is saying is that a lot of people end up having trouble with this. At around the 20 mile mark. For what reason, no one knows for sure.

He says that his way of "increase" works better and ends up with better results. (which is pretty obvious from the old guy he trains that ends up running a 15 min 5k half way through his training for the marathon and he hasnt run for a long time)

So for that 200+ hr guy he woudl have him start lower with his HR range then work it up. instead of the distance. So the distance stays the same, while the HR goes up over time as the lower HRs feel very easy.

I really think this has something to it. That maybe cycling @ 160-170 won't work as well for you until you have done what you are doing @ a lower hr. (and not just a bunch of easy rides, although it may start that way.) because 155-160 might not be far off from 160-170, but maybe its required to master the lower levels first. Just as in most other pursuits in life. Maybe God made everything suprisingly similiar to make it all seem foolishly simple to the observant?

 

[Orange Fish]

I would say your a little off, but not to far off. Unless your saying exactly what I am about to say.

Yeah that's pretty much what I wanted to get across, but just got extraordinarily bored reading the whole thing and put my thoughts together based on what I could read and what was already posted. So I didn't get as detailed, but yeah, it all makese sense.

 

[jagrazor]

Yeah that's pretty much what I wanted to get across, but just got extraordinarily bored reading the whole thing and put my thoughts together based on what I could read and what was already posted. So I didn't get as detailed, but yeah, it all makese sense.

that's weird, i enjoyed every bit of it.

 

[Orange Fish]

that's weird, i enjoyed every bit of it.

It was all the same stuff I already heard and learned, so it's just that it was nothing new. Way too long and boring for my taste. But good info.