I have typically been using Friel zones which differ rather significantly from eRaceplanner zones. Example: LT 152 bike eRaceplanner zone 2 130-140. Friel zone 2= 121-134. From RPE standpoint Friel zone seems to match better. My IMC avg HR trying to push without alot of burn was 130. Max HR with gun to head on bike 163-4. Thanks Kevin and group.

Hi John

Thanks for your comments on the eRacePlanner heart rate zone calculation. You will notice that HR Zones and zone calculations do vary slightly between coaches and sports physiologists, each having certain reasoning and preferences. The 5 zones calculated in eRacePlanner are based on Lactate Threshold, with that value separating Zone 3 and Zone 4. Ie: Threshold is at the top of Zone 3. Most HR Zone calculations are based on LT, that being a significant intensity level. So, I prefer to have a line that separates 'above LT' and 'below LT'. Zone 3 is below, Zone 4 is above.

That said, the eRacePlanner zones do correspond with the workouts that are included in the eRacePlanner workout control and therefore the programs/templates, so they should be used to gain the desired effect for the workouts as described. The actual HR zones should correspond (*somewhat) to the RPE guideline also provided with each zone, for either bike or run, providing the correct Lactate Threshold value is given. *This may vary from athlete to athlete, based on their experience, current fitness level and previous training methods or habits.

I would first like to ask how you came up with 152 as your LT HR. I get the idea, for your max! I feel, for a couple of reasons, that your LT HR as given, may be a little high and that it might be closer to about 142;

1) With the values you've provided, your LT is 93% of your MHR. That's not impossible, but it is extremely high. If we used a more "accepted" generalization of LT=85% MHR, you would be looking at about 140 LT HR. I know the generalization is not accurate - that's why we recommend testing. None the less, it is still a consideration (during testing).

2) If you are starting to "feel a burn" at not much higher than 130 HR, I would expect you are going to be close to your LT HR at around the mid to high 130's.

3) Given you rode around 5:30 in IMC, in less than perfect conditions, yielding a ride in the top 15% of your A/G and top 10% O/All, I find it unlikely that you could do that at 22 bpm below your LT HR (With respect).

Now, let's say your LT HR is 142, eRacePlanner Zone calculator would have your Zone 2 at 122-131. For my athletes at your level, I advise they ride the IMC course at high Z2 to low Z3, not exceeding Z3 (LT) on the climbs. This would have been exactly the HR you rode at - with the desired end (of bike) result, which is to have something left for your run.

Congratulations on a great IMC result and I look forward to hearing back from you, soon.

Thank you Kevin for your very helpful comments. My LT may be lower than I think. My method for coming up with 152 is based on a few sessions. Per Friel the avg HR for the last 20min of an all out TT of 30 min was 152-3. Also was able to sustain 150 in Muskoka this June ( 33mi) and had a strong run after. Finally, earlier this year in Jan-March I was doing some experimenting with high intensity training and with very big effort able to sustain HR Avg of 148-149 for between 1:40 to as longest 2:55 (usually around 272-282w). This would leave me very tired and no ability to do anything more that HR 100-117 till the next weekend. And note that after 6-7 weeks the power levels started to get lowe. Since May I have been trying to build the aerobic engine wth steadily increasing efforts at HR 121-132. This has seemed to work the best for me from a race day results perspective. Not unusual though for me to start to lose it late in workout where unable to sustain power and HR drops into 110-120 range. Todays recovery wo per program was 3 hours zone 2. I knew I could not do 130-140 so I just did my 121-134 range and it was challenging, with power slowly but steadily dropping from 50min in to when I ended early at 2:15. Avg HR 126. Kevin, any thoughts on nailing the right "aerobic" range for HR would be greatly appreciated as it seems so crucial to virutally all programs and long term improvement. Thanks again.

John,

I advise having a lactate test done on the bike, so you take the guesswork out of the Zone calculations. If you are using a power meter on your bike (and it sounds like you are), take the power data that corresponds with your heart rate levels, from YOUR meter, so you have valid data to work with in training. Once you have the LT HR and corresponding 'watts' for that intensity, as well as other intensity levels, you can create "power zones" to work with, rather than heart rate zones (on the bike).

These power zones 'replace' heart rate zones for your bike workouts. In doing so, you will find that most of the time you will "end up in" the correct HR Zone anyway. In using power zones and reacting to the immediate feedback (wattage), you eliminate the lag time related to heart rate response. You will effectively ride in "tighter" heart rate ranges and avoid over-threshold workloads during workouts that should reman below threshold.

Say your LT HR is 142 and the corresponding watts is 240: You ride on a flat course and hold 220 watts for a "tempo" ride, it would be likely that your HR would hold steady at below 142 and your legs would never do work at over 240 watts. This would be ideal in a case where you have to run off the bike.

If you've ridden a rolling/undulating course with a power meter, you are well aware of the rapid power increase that occurs as you begin an ascent, as you feel the tension increase in your legs. Without power feedback, you might tend to push 300+ watts until your heart rate catches up with the work, hits the 142 level and you back off. This lag may take 30-60 seconds. It's that over-threshold effort that causes fatigue in the legs, which may hamper your run.

Use IMC course as an example - those ten rolling hills beyond Richter pass, if ridden with just heart rate feedback, can equate to 10 x 30-60 seconds of squats in the gym (even though you could claim not having exceeded LT heart rate level). I'm sure if you were planning on running a marathon with a 1pm start time, you wouldn't go to the gym and to the 10 x 1 min squats workout in the morning - for fear of destroying your afternoon marathon. Same thing for IMC!

In my 10th IMC (2005), I rode the "rollers" as described above and for the first time ever, come off the bike in the top 10. I ran through to 6th, with fresh legs (rough gut, but that's another story). I strongly believe in this application of power meter use for long-course competition and training - at least for most competitiors.

Back to your case - I think you should either continue using your old zones - with eRacePlanner workouts, OR input 142 (up to 145) as your "estimated" LT HR for cycling, UNTIL you have testing done to confirm the actual LT level. You may even experiment with power zones, based on the info you currently have.

Note: I'm very cautious in looking at AVERAGES. Either Watts or HR. You always need to look further into it. As an example, a 1 hour hill/interval session and a one hour steady sub-threshold ride could both have the same average power or heart rate values, although they would be completely different workouts.

Also, if your heart rate response is supressed for any reason, (lack of sleep, tired legs etc), OR unusaully high due to caffiene intake, emotional stimulation or dehydration (in a race) etc, Heart Rate info may not be accurate for future training.

All of the above mentioned issues should be eliminated before/during a test - this would typically be outlined, at the time of booking a lactate/max test, by the coach or lab technician.

Hope this helps - good luck. KC

Thank you again Kevin. You make a very good case for power vs. HR and I will take your advice. I have resisted power only because the fluctuations are more rapid thus requiring me to pay much closer attention. I think I will average the power readings on the power tap over a few more seconds so the fluctuations are less. That should help. HR certainly can be tricky esp in training. I often seem to get into a sluggish HR situation where it is very difficult to get it up to proper levels as I can when rested. Today I followed your protocol for LT test on run using about one minute thirty seconds for each step level and found my mod-severe burn level in legs and ventilatory threshold occured at HR 150 and with your advice to take 3-5bpm off (to get us back down to a threshold level presumably) I came up with 146. I have typically been using 155 for run. When I subbed 146 in the calculation it gave me 122-134 (and it so happens my avg HR was 129 for the main set as it felt aerobic, not easy but sustainable). If I use 155 I get 130-143 with midpoint about 137. I did briefly work here and it did not feel very aerobic or sustainable. The point is until I can get tested I may start to do your short LT test protocol more often to establish that days (or weeks) aerobic or tempo HR range. It was pretty quick and seemed quite accurate and can help give me a "real time" look at my physiologic picture on that day (versus my "ideal" numbers done when rested and very motivated). Does that sound reasonable as a way of establishing working numbers for the week? Kevin, thanks for your time. I am sure others will benefit from the pearls you are handing out as this is such a basic and essential question (i.e. settting HR target zones).

John,

In my previous message, I described riding the "rollers" at Ironman Canada, as if by power. I actually did not use the power meter in the race. Please keep in mind that I live in Penticton and ride the full course regularly (with the Powertap). I ran a disc for the race, but the main reason for not using the meter, was because I didn't want to be concentrating on the immediate fluctuations in Wattage feedback. After a lot of practice, I believed I had a good enough feel for it (and enough experience to play the patience game).

The things you mention about HR not responding to 'work' are fairly typical (ie; when tired, in hard training etc). This is why Power (zones) will be better for you than HR Zones - keep in mind, though, that your heart response (or lack there of) is telling you something. You can't just ignore the signals and "power-on". Listen to your body. Observe the warning signs, to avoid overtraining symptoms, illness and injury.

OK, back to the business of Heart Rates. Great that you find the simple test protocol a good thing. The number that you come up with for Run LT HR (146), supports my inclination that your bike prediction was too high at 152. Run LT HR is usually a little higher than Bike LT HR. It can be significantly so, but 5 beats could be considered normal.

Your idea of regular self-testing sounds OK. Remember that you did this, initially, within a week of doing an Ironman, so how certain efforts "feel" in terms of sustainability, will be a little off - and so might the HR readings. So, ongoing tracking of this may be worth the effort. Don't get crazy about it (testing and retesting). If you run through it again this coming weekend and make a decision based on both tests, I'm sure you'll be very close for run (and bike), then get on with the training.

If you are implying that you should do a test at the beginning of each week, "to establish working numbers for that week", I'm not too sure that's a good approach. Just dial in LT HR for Bike and Run, when rested, then use those numbers for the period up to Kona. If you are quite satisfied that the numbers you come up with are approproiate for the workouts as described in your ERacePlanner program, then train with them until your peak weeks are over. Then, have your (bike) testing done, after your first taper week, for use in the race. Make sense? You'll have an accurate LT HR for the bike (and corresponding Power levels), for use in the race - leaving you in good shape for the run.

All the best! KC

Makes alot of sense. Thanks again for your help!