spinetrak

So I have recently started tracking my HR, cadence and ofc speed (no powermeter - unfortunately, still too expensive) . I read up about max HR, HR range, polarited training etc. but I am still confused or rather have some observations / questions. At the end of the day, I would like to be able to do say 100-150km rides per day for a week for a longer bike tour. I am 52, slightly underweight, with a resting HR of 48 and a max HR of 176 (I guess my max HR could be a bit higher, but 176 is what I have measured so far when I went all out).

So, first, some observations:
1. My typical cadence at 70rpm is quite a bit below the "recommended" cadence of at least 80rpm, if not 90+
2. When I try to train in the recommended recovery or aerobic HR zones (Z1 or Z2), my cadence is even slower - if I go any faster, I quickly end up in Z3 (tempo). At the same time, I go dreadfully slow...
3. I read that I should be doing polarized training, so roughly an 80-20 ratio of training Z1/Z2 versus Z5+ (above lactate threshold), as opposed to threshold training where I would mostly in Z3 or Z4 (tempo or sub-threshold), which is where I would naturally be if I just went for a "normal" ride, doing what feels natural (which I understand is very common to beginners)

So, questions...
1. Should I not worry about cadence or speed at the moment, but focus more on staying in the right HR zones?
2. Will one effect (or training success criteria) of this training then eventually be that I can go at a higher cadence (ergo higher speed) without that raising my HR as much?
3. Generally, how do people measure the effectiveness of their training without a HR meter? Is that even possible, at least as an approximation, or do I have to have a powermeter? For example, is it a measure of success if I can over time stay for longer in a given HR? That seems to contradict the idea that I should be able to achieve the same results at a lower HR, or do more at the same HR, no?

Thanks in advance!

gregf83 

I would pay less attention to the HR monitor and use RPE and power to guide your training. You need to get your training hrs/wk up into the 15 to 20hrs/wk range. If you can do that on a consistent basis it doesn’t really matter what ‘zone’ your HR is in. Power is a good metric to track training efficacy and can be measured either directly with a powermeter or indirectly by timing yourself up a particular hill, the longer the better.

Once you’ve got your volume up and, hopefully, a few thousand miles in your legs you can start adding intensity with some intervals at higher effort.

Cadence is not really relevant. It might be interesting to observe and experiment with but it’s not an indicator of fitness. I find it tends to go up with power. If I’m riding harder my cadence naturally goes up, on an easier ride my cadence is lower and there is zero benefit in trying to train a faster cadence. It will go up if you need it to.

Drew Eckhardt 

Yes.

You need to pedal faster to do that so your brain learns to keep your muscles coordinated.

Time up a mountain climb of an appropriate height. That's inversely proportional to power.

You can also derive power from speed on an indoor trainer with a known resistance curve like Kurt's fluid trainers. Buy one used for $50-$100 of Craigslist for no shipping charges. Add the $40 Inride power meter gadget if you want the math done for you.

No. With reasonable base fitness that doesn't change - you just output more power at the same heart rate.

Drew Eckhardt 

People win criteriums on six hours a week (hence the Time Crunched Cyclist) and ten is enough to achieve much of your genetic potential if you're not doing stage races.

Your power at various durations comes from a combination of you aerobic base (built by riding below your aerobic threshold/AeT/VT1/LT1) and anaerobic output (maximized riding beyond your anaerobic threshold/AnT/VT2/LTHR/LT4/CP/CP60/FTP). You're not going to do more than two days riding something like 3x10 minutes or 4x8 as hard as possible improving anaerobic power, and there are diminishing returns with aerobic power.

You can improve endurance, but even 12-14 hours will get you comfortably through individual 300-400km+ rides.

You need 120 RPM to recruit all your muscle fibers sprinting. Higher cadence is less fatiguing, with most hour record holders not coincidentally averaging slightly over 100 RPM. It's useful for short bursts of speed without shifting to your big ring - even 39x14 is a 30 MPH gear with some speed in your legs.

At low output or short durations (thirty minute climbs) it doesn't matter.

Carbonfiberboy 

You're just massively undertrained, that's all. You're just starting out, long way to go. Sorry 'bout that, but most of us have been there, just long ago.

So what to do? Ride lots. Simple as that.

1) Absolutely focus on cadence and pedaling form. Train yourself to hold ~90 on the flat and ~80 on climbs. That said, there are some unusual individuals who can put out incredible power at 60 cadence. I think if you were one of those, you'd already know it because you'd be faster now than anyone you've seen.

Ignore the polarized stuff, leave that to the elites. Do not focus on staying in some particular zone. Just ride. My prescription is to do ~ 20 mile rides 2-3 times during the week, mostly flat, not pushing it. One weekend day a week, ride away from home until you are very tired, then ride back. Learn how to dress, to position yourself on the bike, to eat and hydrate on the bike, and to pedal efficiently, i.e. at the recommended cadences and with your legs feeling smooth and supple.

2) Yes, pedaling at a higher cadence will raise your HR. To simplify enormously, you need 2 things to ride: legs and oxygen. Slower cadence uses more leg and less oxygen, hence the lower HR. Higher cadence uses less leg and more oxygen. The issue is that one has only so much leg, but oxygen is in unlimited supply. Hence higher cadence is better over the long run. Gradually work your cadence up. It'll bother your HR less as you get better at pedaling. Massed practice is the thing.

3) Your HR will come up more slowly as your condition improves. You won't notice it spiking as much. Your overall HR during one of those weekend endurance rides will be noticeably lower much of the time. That's the initial effect for the first few months. Then you'll notice that you're going faster at a particular HR on the flat. That's when things start to get more fun and less painful. You may actually see that it's harder to maintain a high HR because your heart is stronger, your blood volume has increased, so your whole body has to work harder to get that HR up. That's very noticeable as one gets into better shape. When you get so you're riding 100 miles/week consistently and you're seeing these HR effects, that's the time to think about starting to really train, i.e. intervals and focused ride goals. No point in doing that until you have the base for it.

All the above said, greg83's advice is also right on, that is if you're capable of riding those hours/week without needing a few days bed rest after the 2nd week. It just depends on where you are in terms of fitness. If you're ready for that, you'd be able to ride a century on any given day now. That's always been my definition of fitness. My guess from your post is that you're a long way out from that.

6 hours/week is OK for crit racers, it's fine though more is better. But for a tour contemplating long days in the saddle, there's no substitute for miles or hours. Distance = strength is the rule. If you can ride 150-200 miles/week in hilly terrain you'll be fine and all the fancy training stuff matters little compared with that. OTOH, I know that many bike tourists don't train at all. They just go and suffer. Whatever.

spinetrak

Ok, thanks a lot for your (partially contradictory :-) input.

Unsurprisingly, there is agreement that more is better (where "more" ranges from 10hrs/week to 2-3 weekday rides of ~ 20 miles,plus a long ride on the weekend to 15-20hrs/wk), so far so good. I am currently doing 5-7hrs/week for 60-80miles, so sounds like I should be roughly doubling that maybe. Apart from finding the time after work on weekdays, I am finding that my main limiting factor for longer rides seems to be my hands/wrists and my bum as well as sometimes my left knee, but maybe those things will go away after some time, and they have gotten better already. I don't have any hills in the North of Germany, our hills are the wind though, and I am quite hesitant to get an indoor trainer, mainly due to the noise and because to me being outside is one the main points of cycling, but ok - point about focus on training volume and worrying about most other things later is well taken.

canklecat

It's easy enough to find what works best for you. Ride at slow cadence one ride, then another at faster cadence another day, maintaining the same speed and/or perceived effort.

Pick a route of an hour or so you can ride repeatedly, to reduce wind as a variable (assuming your regional wind varies over time -- if it's consistent day to day it'll take fewer rides to determine your own best approach).

Compare your heart rate against cadence. Did slower or faster cadence offer any measurable repeatable advantages or disadvantages? If not, it might not matter for you.

For a few years I mostly spun around 90 rpm, pretty much like clockwork after a warmup, regardless of terrain. I noticed my heart rate would peg very quickly on climbs when I tried to stay at 90-100 rpm. It was a pretty firm limit, consistent over many rides over a couple of years. (I'm 62 and rapidly approaching diminishing returns.)

I read about the history of how faster cadence became the new normal in pro racing, and eventually infiltrated into recreational cycling. I realized none of the rationale or methodology that favored faster cadence applied to me. My maximum heart rate might be 170 bpm now, probably lower. I'll never peak at 200+ again. I'm not riding 3-week long grand tours with stages of 25-200 miles a day on mixed terrain against mountain specialists one day, time trialers the next and then flat stages with bunch sprints. I'm riding 3-5 days a week, 20-50 miles at a time, only very occasionally participating in fast group rides (and none of those for the foreseeable future due to the coronavirus pandemic). I don't need to shift the physical and recuperation burden from my legs to my lungs. I'm not taking EPO or blood doping to maximize the advantage of the high aerobic stress that comes with high cadence. Any training I'm doing was (no longer *is*) for the state time trial later this year, but that's probably going to be postponed or cancelled. So I'm just working on getting a little faster and stronger.

So starting in summer-autumn 2019 I gradually switched from averaging 90 rpm to slower cadence. It took awhile to strengthen my legs enough to feel comfortable with it, but for several months my cadence has been closer to 60-70 rpm.
Results:

• My average speed is the same or faster.
• My heart rate stays at least 10 bpm slower on flat terrain.
• My HR doesn't redline as quickly on our many short, steep sprint-climbs.
• Because I ride only 3-5 times a week, 20-50 miles, I don't need much time for my legs to recover from the relatively harder effort. And I don't need to work so hard on squats, lunges, etc., during weekly PT sessions. Just riding harder gears does that.
• My aerobic capacity may have declined a bit, as I got stronger elsewhere. It's a trade-off. Works for me.

Now when I do try to hold 90-100 rpm, my heart rate soars and I'm closer to redlining on the same climbs. It feels like I'm wasting energy just lifting my legs for the next pedal stroke. For me, it's inefficient now.

I still do high cadence drills on the indoor trainer, mostly for the aerobic advantage. But I no longer actually ride at high cadence for most than couple of minutes at a time. Occasionally it's useful to give the legs a bit of a rest. In group rides I find it easier to maintain my position in the pack when I spin -- mostly because most other folks are spinning. If I try to keep my preferred gear and perceived effort I'm out of sync with the group. So, sure, occasionally high cadence is still useful.

Try it and see what works for you.

ZHVelo

1. Just do more hours and (especially if you have limited time) include intervals. If you are just starting out I don't think you even need to worry about structured ones, but just push your body, e.g. if you have a hill of decent length near you, try to go up it at decent speed.
2. Should be yes, you should be able to hold the same gear at a higher cadence for the same heart rate.
3. It is about how you feel. Before I got a power meter I did have a HRM, and turns out that perceived exhaustion aligns very well with heart rate zones. So for intervals I would just go as hard as I thought was appropriate and after the usual delay, my HR ended up where it should.

burnthesheep

You can do a ramp test with HR also to get at your LT HR. Basically, if you own a little trainer, start out easy and up it one gear every minute. Keep going until you're about to die and spin to a stop.

If you know what the word "inflection point" means, you can look at the curve of your HR and there's a little bump there. Find it. Right there, note the HR.

Now you've got a HR for LT.

Outdoors, I'd use a known hill you can use for repeats. Doing VO2? Note whatever speed you can handle up the hill for 3min. Use that as a guide for your repeats. Same for longer efforts like 8min. Do a little test up the hill and note your speed. Cut the speed just a touch for your intervals.

That's about what people did before HR monitors anyway. Use a known section of road, try it out, cut your effort a touch and do repeats.

Carbonfiberboy 

Hands/wrists is some fit related, some fitness related, and some just hand position.

Fit related: https://www.bikeforums.net/21296948-post3.html

Fitness related: more riding will take care of that

Hand position: https://www.bikeforums.net/road-cycl...l#post12953035
Drop Bar Hand Positions: an Introduction
https://www.bikeforums.net/19145009-post3.html
https://www.bikeforums.net/long-dist...l#post12207030

Butt pain: more riding usually takes care of that. If it gets worse and your saddle height is correct, wrong saddle.

Knee pain: stretch every morning, these stretches: https://www.bikeforums.net/road-cycl...l#post15372967

Carbonfiberboy 

Another thought on cadence:
For some years, I've been doing high cadence drills out on the road. My wife and I just did this on our tandem yesterday. Go out for about a 2 hour ride on flat or only slightly rolling terrain. Hills need to be no more than 2-3%. Warm up at a moderate effort for about 1/2 hour, then shift down and pick up a 100 cadence, gradually increasing HR into Z3. Shift as necessary to stay as close to 100 as possible, while staying somewhere in Z3. Keep this up for 25 minutes. If that goes really well, spin easy for 5', then do another 25'. If you can't do the whole first 25', try again once a week until you can, then try to do another one. I find this little exercise makes a big difference in my leg strength and endurance as well as leg speed.

Iride01 

I did a similar thing. I think, but certainly not on a tandem....... though my wife that doesn't ride has hinted she'd be interested in trying one.... but back to the topic.

I used 130 as my HR not to go over. It was annoying to have to use so low a gearing and going soooooo slow for my twenty or thirty miles rides, but it did seem to work after as little as three rides. I'm not sure at my age and condition, I could ride at 100 HR. The hills on my routes here run 4 to 6% but are only 20 to 40 feet of climb so maybe that is a factor in what HR you choose.

I now routinely average over 80 rpm for a 30 or 40 mile ride and don't think twice about 120 rpm for brief periods. Before I used that method for training, I was struggling to get a 75 average even after riding seriously for 3 or 4 years.

Carbonfiberboy 

Almost all tandem teams are couples with mismatched riding ability. That's why they tandem. Stokers who don't ride singles are more common that one might think. In a way, it's an advantage for the captain not to have someone back there with a different opinion about what's going on. Captaining a tandem is a real trip and some serious leg training. It is said that they are relationship accelerators - whichever way it's going, it'll get there faster on a tandem.