Something I’ve noticed since getting an ftp bump (272 → 285) is my top end zone 2 rides are pushing my heart rate up higher then the traditional (by some definitions) range of Z2 endurance HR.
max observed HR recently was 190 but these rides are getting me up to 165ish.
These are shorter workouts as endurance goes (1:30 and less) so it’s the classic intensity in exchange for time. No problem hitting the power targets over that period.
Recent example was Cumberland -3 where my average was 156, but that was dragged down by the start and end durations at lower intensity. Median is probably closer to 163-165.
I guess my question is does it matter? There’s lots of chatter around keeping HR lower on endurance rides, but is that realistic with the shorter durations?
Also it’s indoor so there will be variability with cooling and hydration I normally have 2 fans on the go. Room temp is ~10c
Even allowing for the usual HR caveats (indoor cooling, hydration, drift, etc.), settling around ~85% of observed max is on the high side for what most people would consider classic endurance physiology. For many athletes, that’s getting closer to low tempo territory rather than strictly below LT1.
That doesn’t make it a bad session, it’s still productive aerobic work, but it’s probably more “upper endurance / tempo-lite” than pure base.
Out of curiosity, how did you rate it? If it came back as Moderate rather than Easy, that’s usually a signal you were riding near the top of your current endurance range. In my experience, Moderate ratings on endurance workouts will nudge the next Z2 prescription slightly downward, which is probably appropriate in this case.
While this could be a sign that your FTP could be too high, I think it’s first important to know how you’ve calculated your HR zones, and when that was last done since HR changes over time due to training, fitness, age, etc.
Using your max observed HR isn’t the best way to find your zones. I’d recommend doing a LTHR test instead.
From there, I like to use this to set my zones.
Zone 1: under 80% of LTHR
Zone 2: 80% to 88% of LTHR
Zone 3: 89% to 94% of LTHR
Zone 4: 95% to 100% of LTHR
Zone 5: above LTHR
Some may have a different set of zones that they use, which is what can make using HR in tandem with power tricky, but I’ve had good success pairing my HR with power using these ranges.
As always, if anyone has other suggestions as to what has proven to be reliable for them, please share them here!
I find HR hugely individual, and even comparing my own HR values it varies a lot by temperature, coffee, time of day, etc. E.g. My commute in to work typically has HR about 10bpm higher than the return journey at similar power. Which I assume is some combo of coffee, breakfast, maybe being fresher.
Think for endurance rides RPE is pretty reliable, and fatigue. If they don’t feel too hard, and the fatigue isn’t impacting your harder interval rides, they’re probably OK.
First off I’m going to agree with Eddie, a peak HR value is not maxHR. Imagine doing a ramp test with your heart rate rising to a point that stops rising. Imagine still ramping up, but your HR stays the same.
Hard to imagine for a lot of us, but that is maxHR. I can’t do it on a bike, did it once on a treadmill. My coach asked me to see a GP afterwards!
You’re doing the right thing by keeping an eye on HR imo. Whether you test real maxHR or move to LTHR, (I use LTHR from my Garmin) you do have the option of switching Endurance rides to Conservative so that they don’t progress as quickly as the other training zones.
TR has spoiled me with the AI detection doing a 30 min max effort will be a surprise!
I have not formally calculated the zones, hence the naive max HR approach
Let’s assume hypothetically that my LTHR is 180, which puts zone 2 in the range of 144 to 159. How does that mesh with the ai generate workouts of TR which may be given above that? Sounds like the recommendation of lower the training approach would work?
In my example the average would have been ok, but the median of the ride would have been above that value.
So I do have the time for longer rides for endurance which seem to deliver lower intensity lets say 65 to 70 vs 70 to 75. Would it be better suited to increasing length for lower power. clearly this would increase TSS, which I get a finger wagging yellow day when I do it from TR.
We prescribe workouts based on power and your FTP, not HR. We definitely use HR data, but power is the main driver.
If you find your actual LTHR, calculate your zones, and find that when riding at the top end of Z2, your HR and power zones don’t somewhat align, it could be worth looking into, but I do think that with some focus on solid aerobic training, things should work out pretty well.
Keep in mind that, as @cartsman mentioned, HR is very susceptible to variance, so it’s important to watch trends rather than looking at one or two workouts.
Sounds great. I’ll probably not worry and keep rolling with the recommended workouts then, if there is nothing really to tweak.
my volume is low so I still am curious if making that ride longer at lower watts will yield lower HR, but I also am aware longer ride could degrade the harder efforts later in the week.
I’ll say my goal is to be above my group other riders so I can operate at their number with “less” effort. That’s the idea at least.
Try this: Make a note of your AIFTP Prediction. Now go into to all your planned endurance rides and choose easier alternates (think IF below 0.65). Now check your AIFTP Prediction.
If your prediction hasn’t gone down at all, or has gone down by a trivial amount …
… why would you do your endurance rides any harder?
Depending on how low is “low”, an argument can be made for pushing into tempo for all your endurance work. There is nothing magical about zone 2, it’s just an intensity where most athletes can push a lot of volume while staying reasonably fresh. But that time might be better served in tempo for low volume athletes. As you stated previously, it’s the classic intensity vs duration balancing act.
In my opinion, getting in 2-3 high quality interval/intensity workouts every week is always top priority. In the remaining hours, you have to figure out how to maximize training stress while protecting those interval days. If you are doing a bunch of hours, that usually means lower intensity (ie z2). When most of those easy days are short, many athletes can push those into tempo without jeopardizing the hard days. All of it is very individual, so it’s something that requires a bit of curiosity and experimentation to figure out IMO.
I’m not sure how well TR can pick up on individual cues and get athletes into the ideal mix, but I assume/hope it would get you there over time. And you can probably nudge it along by setting your endurance and tempo training approach to aggressive. Or just pick some tempo alternates for endurance days and see how your fatigue is trending.
Because Z2 adaptations happen over the long term, which would exceed the 28 day window.
Assuming you’re not maxing out fatigue, you’ll get a slightly stronger aerobic stimulus with increasing power. I’m of the opinion that total aerobic volume is really what matters, assuming adequate recovery. You’ll max out threshold fastest, and low end of endurance last. Everything in between is a sliding scale.
This both seems to propose “maximum recoverable dose”.
Over the years I’ve become more cautious. I like what @Helvellyn said even though I don’t think HR zones are rubbish…but the point for endurance training with HR (as well as with power) is to keep in mind that it’s not fix zones but the body is working in a continuum.
To me that HR would indicate somewhat high stress…nothing wrong with that but I’d probably count those days more like intensity (and therefore would go easier to save for real intensity or go longer to have specific endurance intensity days…like LSD with S for steady).
If I already have intensity sessions in the week I personally try to make endurance easier in order to not stress the sympathetic system too much and to help the parasympathetic system.
I’ll finish with these thoughts of mine from another post:
This is extremely well put, total agreement. The lowest risk approach is often staying closer to the minimum effective dose, everything above that is usually diminishing returns. That said, diminishing returns are still returns if you have the desire/curiosity to explore closer to your limits. And I personally think there is way too much drama about over training and “going off the cliff”. Very few amateurs ever get close to actual over training syndrome (what I personally consider a true cliff). The cliff for most amateurs is more like a gentle downward slope as we crest a rolling hill. We can absolutely have periods where we over-reach or get sick, but that typically isn’t some catastrophic disaster that takes months or years to recover from. A little over-reaching isn’t big deal unless it happens right when you are trying to peak for a high priority event. I’d argue that serious amateurs should consider stepping into an over–reaching state from time to time, it’s a good way to get in tune with the signals and feelings that comes with it. Maybe not the right approach for the rider primarily focused on trying to stay fit and keep up on the weekend group rides, but it can be a fun part of the sport for those who want to find personal limits.
The endurance rides are there to support the interval workouts. I’m less likely to get fitter on 2 or 3 hard rides plus 5 or 4 rest days than if I do 2 or 3 hard rides plus 3 endurance rides plus 1 or 2 rest days.
