too close to max?

lobserve said:

I've been training on a stationary bike lately. My max HR is about 180-185. I like to ride hard with my HR in the 160s at about 200 watts. This is effortful for me but I can do if for about an hour or so. Why is there such a narrow range of HR between where I feel like I'm working hard (160s) and failure (170-175)? Any why am I able to sustain 90% of my max for so long? I ride two or three times a week yet my resting HR never goes below 60. Is it just me?

What type of trainer? Trainers with wattage meters on them can vary widely in the accuracy and precision.
If you are riding only two to three times a week for a total of three hours I would not expect much of change in fitness - probably better than being sedentary. Heart rate data is not terribly useful in this case (it's hard to get adequate ventilation indoors among other things), resting heart rate data less so since an absolute value like that is not an indicator of fitness.

lobserve said:

Why is there such a narrow range of HR between where I feel like I'm working hard (160s) and failure (170-175)?

10-15 beats is a narrow range? The more time you spend there, the more time you'll realize you *can* spend there.

How did you evaluate your max hr?

SolarEnergy said:

How did you evaluate your max hr?

I ride on a precor stationary bike at a gym, not a trainer. I measured my max HR by riding as hard as I can for as long as I can. On the stationary and the road I can't get it over 183 so I use that I my max. I'm 44, so the age based max is 176, which is BS.

I'm doing 2 or 3 hours a week plus weight training, at least until it's warm enough to get back on the road.

Yes, 10-15 BPM seems like a small range given what I see in the perceived effort charts. I guess my question is does it make sense to ride close to my lactate threshold when I only have about an hour to ride? Will this improve my speed for short (1-2 hour) road rides?

lobserve said:

I've been training on a stationary bike lately. My max HR is about 180-185. I like to ride hard with my HR in the 160s at about 200 watts. This is effortful for me but I can do if for about an hour or so. Why is there such a narrow range of HR between where I feel like I'm working hard (160s) and failure (170-175)? Any why am I able to sustain 90% of my max for so long? I ride two or three times a week yet my resting HR never goes below 60. Is it just me?

If only you would try not to ride that hard ! I'm sure If you ride 3 weeks at 65 % max HR your resting HR will be down

stevevinck said:

If only you would try not to ride that hard ! I'm sure If you ride 3 weeks at 65 % max HR your resting HR will be down

65% of max? I'm not sure that would even qualify as exercise for me, LOL. I don't see how such a low effort level would produce any real fitness or speed benefits. If anyone can explain this to me I'd appreciate it since now I am more confused that before. 😕

lobserve said:

....I am more confused that before. 😕

1) don't put too much emphasis on resting HR, since it's not a great performance predictor in itself.
2) resting HR is a function of cardiac stroke volume. Very high intensity (90-95% MHR) efforts create the most stimulus for an increase in stroke volume. If you don't do much work in that range, you probably won't see much change in resting HR if you've been training for more than a year or two.
3) As you point out, the difference between 160 & 170-175 bpm represents a pretty big difference in exertion level (ie, 'hard' vs. 'failure'😉. As the PE charts describe, there are several intensity levels within that range, but it's possible that more training would be necessary for you to make good use of those levels. IOW, with more training it's probable that you'll develop a much wider useful range between 'hard' and 'failure' (with failure occuring at a higher HR), or as I said above "the more time you spend in that range, the more time you'll find you *can* spend there."
4) It seems quite possible that your MHR is underestimated, and that's why you're able to ride for such a long time at 90% MHR. That said, highly-trained cyclists *are* able to ride for quite a long time (> 1hr) at >90% MHR, but with you only riding 2-3 hours/wk and having reproduced your MHR on both a road and stationary bike, I'm guessing that your situation is closer to the first case.
5) Yes, 1-hr hard, steady rides (my interpretation of what you mean by lactate threshold) or hard intervals are beneficial and will improve your speed on 1-2 hour rides. Increasing your ride time from 2-3 hr/wk to ~4-6 hr/wk would also give a big benefit.

Hope that helps. Good luck. 🙂

lobserve said:

65% of max? I'm not sure that would even qualify as exercise for me, LOL. I don't see how such a low effort level would produce any real fitness or speed benefits. If anyone can explain this to me I'd appreciate it since now I am more confused that before. 😕

I always thought people on a forum asking for advice would appreciate people giving advice (you don' have to agree but laughing at someaone seems hmmm...) 😕
Surely I'm not the most qualified here to give advice here but with my MaxHR the same as yours and my ability to drive 285 watt at a HR of 145 I thought I'd give you an idea of what I do. For a year and a half I never would go over 70% of maxHR cause it would cause serious knee problems. My resting Hrate dropped to 41 but more important it seemed to gave me an good base endurance and power.

stevevinck said:

I always thought people on a forum asking for advice would appreciate people giving advice (you don' have to agree but laughing at someaone seems hmmm...) 😕
Surely I'm not the most qualified here to give advice here but with my MaxHR the same as yours and my ability to drive 285 watt at a HR of 145 I thought I'd give you an idea of what I do. For a year and a half I never would go over 70% of maxHR cause it would cause serious knee problems. My resting Hrate dropped to 41 but more important it seemed to gave me an good base endurance and power.

I would not worry about it. The OP should reassess his goals read a book on training and consider getting a coach. Three hours of training could be enough for general physical well being but to be frank is not enough to be competitive on any level for an adult in one sport for someone without other training and a signficant background in sports at some level - it's hard to take him seriously as a competitve athlete. The OP is spending more time on this forum than training per week.

I am curious as to how he (OP) derives his wattage number. 🙂

Woofer said:

I would not worry about it. The OP should reassess his goals read a book on training and consider getting a coach. Three hours of training could be enough for general physical well being but to be frank is not enough to be competitive on any level for an adult in one sport for someone without other training and a signficant background in sports at some level - it's hard to take him seriously as a competitve athlete. The OP is spending more time on this forum than training per week.

frenchyge said:

1) don't put too much emphasis on resting HR, since it's not a great performance predictor in itself.
2) resting HR is a function of cardiac stroke volume. Very high intensity (90-95% MHR) efforts create the most stimulus for an increase in stroke volume. If you don't do much work in that range, you probably won't see much change in resting HR if you've been training for more than a year or two.
3) As you point out, the difference between 160 & 170-175 bpm represents a pretty big difference in exertion level (ie, 'hard' vs. 'failure'😉. As the PE charts describe, there are several intensity levels within that range, but it's possible that more training would be necessary for you to make good use of those levels. IOW, with more training it's probable that you'll develop a much wider useful range between 'hard' and 'failure' (with failure occuring at a higher HR), or as I said above "the more time you spend in that range, the more time you'll find you *can* spend there."
4) It seems quite possible that your MHR is underestimated, and that's why you're able to ride for such a long time at 90% MHR. That said, highly-trained cyclists *are* able to ride for quite a long time (> 1hr) at >90% MHR, but with you only riding 2-3 hours/wk and having reproduced your MHR on both a road and stationary bike, I'm guessing that your situation is closer to the first case.
5) Yes, 1-hr hard, steady rides (my interpretation of what you mean by lactate threshold) or hard intervals are beneficial and will improve your speed on 1-2 hour rides. Increasing your ride time from 2-3 hr/wk to ~4-6 hr/wk would also give a big benefit.

Hope that helps. Good luck. 🙂

Thanks for the advice, I do appreciate it all. Believe me, riding only 2 or 3 hours per week is not by choice, it's all the time I have lately. I wasn't asking to be taken seriously as a competitive athelete, just asking for advice. The watts I mentioned are what the display reads on the precor bike I ride, I have no idea how accurate it is.

Woofer said:

I would not worry about it. The OP should reassess his goals read a book on training and consider getting a coach. Three hours of training could be enough for general physical well being but to be frank is not enough to be competitive on any level for an adult in one sport for someone without other training and a signficant background in sports at some level - it's hard to take him seriously as a competitve athlete. The OP is spending more time on this forum than training per week.

I didn't read that the OP was training for competitive reasons or asked to be taken seriously as a competitive athlete 😉 , just asked for some advice. Also, if he/she only has 3 hours a week 'maybe' a coach isn't required (could be argued that a coach is even more practical, but depends on goals). Not all of us who frequent the forum are looking to be the next Lance, but maybe just to enjoy cycling and reap the benefits of exercise. 3 hours a week is 99% more than 90% of Americans (not factual, but you get the point), so congrats to OP for finding 3 hours a week to exercise!

noonievut said:

I didn't read that the OP was training for competitive reasons or asked to be taken seriously as a competitive athlete 😉 , just asked for some advice. Also, if he/she only has 3 hours a week 'maybe' a coach isn't required (could be argued that a coach is even more practical, but depends on goals). Not all of us who frequent the forum are looking to be the next Lance, but maybe just to enjoy cycling and reap the benefits of exercise. 3 hours a week is 99% more than 90% of Americans (not factual, but you get the point), so congrats to OP for finding 3 hours a week to exercise!

Depending upon how the rides are space in time, the OP may be better off not doing any riding whatsoever for general health reasons - if he exerts himself too hard he could kill himself because his body is not adapted to the efforts, i.e. the weekend warrior syndrome that was in the news again recently.

The OP chose the power training forum. Based on the little information provided and the likely very poor power estimator on a trainer, this does not seem like the appropriate forum for the question.