Your speed at 60% HRmax
- Thread starter scico
- Start date
Me thinks there be a wee bit of fudge factor in this pole!! The reason I think that is because it's just too low of a HR to do most people any good unless they are using the Karnoven Formula or are riding for hours and hours a day. I even do most of my recovery rides between 68% - 71% of MaxHR. The only way I could do this low of a HR on any kind of regular basis is indoors on a stationary bike while watching TV... and it would still be difficult to keep it that low.
I just came back from a super-easy and super-boring 2 hour ride where I tried desperately to keep my HR under 120 BPM. This was on my Raleigh M60 MTB with WTB Velociraptor tires, but even on my Specialized touring bike I probably would have only added 1 - 1.5 MPH at this HR.
Total AvgHR = 119 BPM (62.3% of MaxHR of 191) 02:00:23 (HRM)
Lap1 AvgHR = 118 BPM (61.78% of MaxHR) 01:00:03
Lap2 AvgHR = 119 BPM (62.3% of MaxHR) 01:00:19
Time in Zone (134 - 153) = 00:00:00
HR above 153 = 00:00:00
HR below 134 = 02:00:23
Distance = 21.26 Miles
Avg Speed = 10.6 MPH
Max Speed = 12.9 MPH
I just came back from a super-easy and super-boring 2 hour ride where I tried desperately to keep my HR under 120 BPM. This was on my Raleigh M60 MTB with WTB Velociraptor tires, but even on my Specialized touring bike I probably would have only added 1 - 1.5 MPH at this HR.
Total AvgHR = 119 BPM (62.3% of MaxHR of 191) 02:00:23 (HRM)
Lap1 AvgHR = 118 BPM (61.78% of MaxHR) 01:00:03
Lap2 AvgHR = 119 BPM (62.3% of MaxHR) 01:00:19
Time in Zone (134 - 153) = 00:00:00
HR above 153 = 00:00:00
HR below 134 = 02:00:23
Distance = 21.26 Miles
Avg Speed = 10.6 MPH
Max Speed = 12.9 MPH
Agree it's hard to ride at 60%; to me that's strictly a recovery pace you'd use for an easy spin a day or two after a hard event. In the LA Performance Plan book, Lance says he does his long endurance rides at 60-62%, or 120-124 bpm. Training like this certainly requires discipline and relaxation on the bike. Maybe this is how he learned to conserve energy so well for the final week of the TdF.scico said:
A much better question to ask would be to specify a specific zone based upon lactate threshold or a zone that is widely considered to be purely aerobic and have them do a, say, 5 or 10 or even a 20k time trial in that zone. IE, I could do a time trial at about 5 beats below my LT and that would be an accurate comparsion of aerobic ability compared to other cyclists especially at 20km which is a common time trial length.
Thomas Davis
Thomas Davis
Doctor Morbius said:
I can do a hundred in less than 6 with a HR of 120 to 135. So this doesn't really impress me that much. If he said he trains 125 to 150 in 5 to 6 hours, then I would take notice. But maybe such speeds are not necessary. Perhaps a lot of miles at what he would consider an easy pace really does the trick. For me, although it's not exactly hard, it's not exactly easy at that rate and distance. But I don't even race. I would consider it an accomplishment to complete the Tour de France each stage in one day, not in 4 or 5 hours. I'd take my time, starting at sunup and hoping to be done by sundown.
gntlmn said:I can do a hundred in less than 6 with a HR of 120 to 135. So this doesn't really impress me that much. If he said he trains 125 to 150 in 5 to 6 hours, then I would take notice. But maybe such speeds are not necessary. Perhaps a lot of miles at what he would consider an easy pace really does the trick. For me, although it's not exactly hard, it's not exactly easy at that rate and distance. But I don't even race. I would consider it an accomplishment to complete the Tour de France each stage in one day, not in 4 or 5 hours. I'd take my time, starting at sunup and hoping to be done by sundown.
That's pretty solid, but one also has to take into consideration the terrain, for instance 100 miles over hilly or mountainous terrain would be pretty damn difficult to do in 6 hours for the average man but to do 100 miles on flat terrain in 6 hours is not too bad. For me, to do it at that pace even on flat areas for 6 hours at 130-150 bpm would be somewhat challenging for me.
To do 125 to 150 miles in 5 to 6 hours would actually be very close to actual race pace training when one takes into account that Lance or any given pro would have to average 25 miles an hour the whole way and that's pretty much time trialing alone for that whole distance.
Thomas Davis
tomdavis80 said:
Yeah, I was thinking about that yesterday. I timed a hundred just a few days ago and came up with 5:23. I wasn't racing anyone, but I was trying to keep a somewhat even pace by watching my heart monitor. I think if I just kept it at about 135 bpm for the whole distance, that would probably be the best way to go.
Also, what's kind of tough to fathom is that the power output goes up quite a bit even in this long distance just to shave off a few minutes. Without knowing this, it seems like nothing to knock off that 23 minutes and break 5, but I have a feeling it would take a lot of training.
When Lance says he's going 100-130 miles, it probably includes hills and wind. Also, if you can do 130 miles in 5 hours, that's really cooking. I was looking at it from the minimums of the range, not the maximums. That's an enormous difference.
The TdF mountain stages is what I was referring to for taking a really long time. That would put so much additional time into the journey compared to flat stages.
It's tough to make a broad statement about training have relevant meaning. The conditions are so variable.
I wish to hell I could do that! I went for a 4 hour ride Sunday on my touring bike and only got in 57 miles. My heart rate average for the ride was 138 BPM (72.25% of MaxHR of 191). I took a break after 2 hours for the usual things (snack, bathroom, fresh water bottle). The break isn't caclulated in the time either.gntlmn said:
Sounds to me like you're pretty damned fit!
Doctor Morbius said:
Now you got me thinking....
I did 44.1 miles on Sunday in 2:30, AND, likely 25 minutes of that was on 4-5% grade stuff (was hill training this day). I'm starting to feel like a "tough guy"... LOL...
Heart rate average for that period was 139. (77% of maxHR of 180). I did an hour and a half at 85% maxHR recently... maybe I need to tone it down some. I'm with you guys, don't know that I could actually ride at 60%, that's 108 for me. Maybe on dead flat ground with no wind, 60 cadence in the 39-23... heheh.Since this is a "speed related thread", when I was first going this spring, I was happy to be noodling along on flat ground at 16-17mph. Then gradually over time I noticed 18 mph, more recently (last week or so) I'm not happy unless I'm riding 20mph or faster, in the sub 3 minute mile area when the going is mostly flat terrain. Doesn't always happen, but it's what I notice as "relative" numbers of speed.
I was knocking out 2:49 miles on the computrainer today (road course, not flat ground) for nearly 30 minutes at 85-88%mhr. That made me feel pretty good. Had a new tire on the bike too, extra drag trying to keep it from slipping. As it wears in, I'm thinking it will go faster. That was a pretty major effort for me, I was pretty hammered. 21.3mph average.
scico said:
Scico, Your question motivated me to find an answer based on my equipment and level of fitness. I realize that there many variables that can't be accounted for, but it was FUN, and gave me something different to do this morning rather than just slog on the miles.
The testing was done on my computrainer, with my 8 speed rear cassette Trek 5200 (23-11). I have a new tire on the rear, and was having trouble with slippage, and what I believe now also is excessive tension that may be slowing my numbers a bit. As the tire wears in (still has a stupid molding ridge down the center), I believe I will be able to loosen the tension and the numbers will come up a bit. I need to get that tire outside for 50-100 miles to get that ridge off there.
it's going to be a lot of information, I may start another thread when I get time later today, and link it here, because it's interesting information. Possibly not valuable to anybody but me, but at the very least I had fun and actually learned a few things about conserving energy and cadence (relative to me), and it might be motivating to others to get out and ride and have fun.
I did the testing on flat ground, no wind, 1 mile intervals.
Here's a taste to peak the curiousity.
60% maxHR of 180 is "108" (for the record, as mentioned elsewhere in this thread, I found it hard to go that slow, had to reduce cadence to compensate).
60%mhr "108" @ 64-66 cadence, 14.3mph avg, 88 watts avg, 4:10 mile.
Haulin' pass for fun and to compare:
155-162 pulse (87-90%mhr), cadence n/a, 21.6mph avg, 245 watts avg, 2:45 mile.
(more later)
-Bob
Here is the link for the continuation of the information I posted.
http://www.cyclingforums.com/showthread.php?p=1283425&posted
http://www.cyclingforums.com/showthread.php?p=1283425&posted
Similar threads
