I think what Ric was saying was that those coaches in the UK who advocate HR training (e.g., for those who don't have a PM) advocate the use of training levels based on max HR as the baseline metric. Three concepts have been discussed in this thread: max HR, lactate threshold HR and ~1 hr max effort HR (aka functional theshold HR). Ric was not saying that training levels should be defined by HR. If one has access to a PM, Ric would definitely advocate training based on power.Sillyoldtwit said:
As to what you are doing, Ric's approach would be slightly different (but only slightly). You are riding your high-intensity efforts based on Andy Coggan's schema, which is based on 1-hr max power (FT) as the primary metric. Ric's schema is based on maximal aerobic power (MAP). MAP is a different form of performance test, a ramp test whereby you start at a moderate power level (e.g., 100W) and gradually increase power on a very precise schedule until you can't increase power any more. You then take your AP for the last 60 seconds and that is your MAP. This is typically higher than FT and I think the FT/MAP ratio is typically ~70-90%. The British Cycling Federation has been using this performance test for a long time and, consequently, the British Cycling Federation coaches have a lot of data on cycling performance relative to this metric. Other experts (e.g., Andy Coggan) have more experience with other metrics such as FT. When you compute both metrics (FT and MAP) and put AC's and Ric's schemas side by side, they are actually quite similar if you fall in the normal range of FT/MAP ratio. Where they differ is for those who fall outside the normal range of FT/MAP ratio. Here is a link that describes both Ric's performance test and his training zones http://www.cyclingnews.com/fitness/?id=powerstern. You might want to run a MAP test and compare the training levels you are using with those from Ric's schema. It takes only ~15 minutes (depending on where you start), although it is much like the max duration test you did earlier in that it does leave you a bit wasted. I have done such a test.
As to Ric not having read your thread, we need to cut Ric some slack at the moment -- his wife gave birth to their first child a couple of months ago and I think Ric is a bit sleep-deprived at the moment. That's why he asked you to net it out for him briefly.
and what's more he is free to choose what and what not to read. I don't say for one minute he should read my thread, which must be pretty boring to many people. I only found it strange that out of simple curiosity he hadn't had one peek to see what it is about. I read all the first posts of new threads and if they don't interest me then I don't bother again. But then that's me - we're all different!
