Endurance Rides

According to McArdle et al. (2001), the often-cited recommendation of 70% HRmax as a training threshold for aerobic improvement only represents a general guideline for effective yet comfortable exercise. And, the actual lower limit of %HRmax may depend on the person's initial exercise capacity and current state of training. Plus, more importantly, a longer exercise duration offsets a lower exercise intensity.

So, as you can see from Lance's information his long rides of 5-6 hours would definetly compensate for a slightly lower intensity than the usually prescribed/recomended figure of 65%-75% of HRmax for low-intensity endurance training.

You must always consider that a training effect is not just the result of intensity, but also of exercise duration and frequency. Additionally, you should also remember that what works for one person is not necessarily correct approach for another person....This is what training specificity is all about.

Scott Moroschan

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by tomUK
I have noticed on Lance's web site (FAQ page) he denotes his average HR to be between 61% and 63% during endurance rides of 5-6 hours. Many on this site would say that such a zone would cause little improvement.

What is the real deal on this? I mean, surely if Lance is doing this wouldn't we all be wise to follow?

In addition to what Scott wrote, there's several points to consider

1) It's highly likely that in reality LA trains by a prescription of power rather than HR

2) HR can vary at a given workload due to various conditions

3) The figure quoted is as you point out an average. Thus, we don't know what happened within the session that was prescribed. In other words, LA could be training at a higher percentage of HRmax uphill and on the flat, but stopping to get some food, go pee, get some drinks, coasting downhill, etc will lower HRavg (and average power). This is different to suggesting what a prescribed session should be and how it turns out

As regards what works for LA, it may or may not work for 'us'. Do we all have the opportunity, inclination, and the ability to ride such high volumes on a regular/daily basis? I for one certainly don't!

Ric

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by tomUK
I have noticed on Lance's web site (FAQ page) he denotes his average HR to be between 61% and 63% during endurance rides of 5-6 hours. Many on this site would say that such a zone would cause little improvement.

What is the real deal on this? I mean, surely if Lance is doing this wouldn't we all be wise to follow?

It's well known that at HR approx. between 120 and 150 bpm (for 190-200 max HR) heart reaches maximal size (not maximal stroke volume!). Prolonged exercise at this intensity
induces increase in heart's and left ventricle size. The longer exercise the more enlargement you get. Most trained pros need to do such volume to gain tiny enhancements 'cos they are very close already to their genetic potential.
It's obvious the bigger the heart the blood for muscles.

The LA Performance Plan book makes the same statement. Could it be that this training matches the average duration and intensity for Lance's easy days in the TdF?

lots of ifs, buts and maybes...

LA does actually train using HR. While he uses a power meter this is only to anaylse his progress. Carmichael does note on many occasions that power in itself is not a good guide to train by. (Happy to point you to these articles if you require such). Personally I am more of a HR fan as wattage is too hard to keep constant (easier on intervals), but I guess it is preference. Some days I might not be able to produce the same power - or in order for me to do such might require a higher heart rate leading to me getting tired sooner.

As you say - what works for one doesn't for another, however, we all hope to build upon the invention of the wheel and not re-create it.

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by dhk
Could it be that this training matches the average duration and intensity for Lance's easy days in the TdF?

I don't know Armstrong and Carnichael but...
Definitely NO. 😄

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by tomUK
lots of ifs, buts and maybes...

LA does actually train using HR. While he uses a power meter this is only to anaylse his progress. Carmichael does note on many occasions that power in itself is not a good guide to train by. (Happy to point you to these articles if you require such). Personally I am more of a HR fan as wattage is too hard to keep constant (easier on intervals), but I guess it is preference. Some days I might not be able to produce the same power - or in order for me to do such might require a higher heart rate leading to me getting tired sooner.

As you say - what works for one doesn't for another, however, we all hope to build upon the invention of the wheel and not re-create it.

not really... http://www.ridefast.com/page.asp?page_id=content&page_content=A-8&CategoryID=66&ArticleID=100

eventually they dragged themselves into the 21st century! seems that they prescribe by power.

i'd sincerely doubt LA trains by HR prescription.

Ric

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by dhk
Could it be that this training matches the average duration and intensity for Lance's easy days in the TdF?

easy days in the TdF can be mucho easier than this

Ric

What do I seem to be doing wrong then? Today I went out for an 80 minute ride. My Avg. HR was 137 and my average speed on pretty flat ground was a pathetic 10.4 MPH.

Shouldn't I be able to go much faster than this at that heart rate?

I ride a 2003 Raleigh M60 MTB with knobby tires, weigh a fairly solid but stocky 240 LBS and have a MaxHR of 185. In 2 months I'll be 44 years old. My resting HR is 58 BPM and I've been riding & exercising very regularly since last May.

I don't have access to any sophisticated equipment, such as a power meter. Could it be because I'm fairly heavy and stocky (used to be a bodybuilder) that 10.4 MPH requires the same power output and energy for me as 15 MPH or higher would be for a much thinner/narrower person?

I would like to be able to complete a century this summer/fall but at 10.4 MPH it would take nearly forever! I have purchased a Specialized Sequoia road bike but can't tell that it is appreciably faster than my Raleigh MTB. I'm trying to keep my training HR between 65% - 75%, which is 120 - 139 BPM.

Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance.

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by ricstern
not really... http://www.ridefast.com/page.asp?page_id=content&page_content=A-8&CategoryID=66&ArticleID=100

eventually they dragged themselves into the 21st century! seems that they prescribe by power.

i'd sincerely doubt LA trains by HR prescription.

Ric

And there is a sustained high cadence work aspect which is not elaborated on in LA's training..... would explain to some extent the low HR

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by edd
And there is a sustained high cadence work aspect which is not elaborated on in LA's training..... would explain to some extent the low HR

a high pedal cadence (compared to a 'normal' cadence) at a given workload is likely to increase not decrease HR, as it's less efficient

ric

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by ricstern
a high pedal cadence (compared to a 'normal' cadence) at a given workload is likely to increase not decrease HR, as it's less efficient

ric

But if the goal is to sustain it for very long periods then parameters may have to be revalued.. so it can be done.. intensity brought down ?

just speculation