Junk Miles
09-04-20, 06:38 PM
#26
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: NV
Posts: 600
Bikes: 2021 Litespeed T5 105, 1990 Gios Compact Pro 105
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 167 Post(s)
Liked 325 Times
in
182 Posts
No mile for me is junk. I work as hard as I want and don't let internet peer pressure goad me into overtraining with resultant injury. I know my age. I know my limits. I feel my knees.
Likes For gios:
09-04-20, 06:53 PM
#27
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Atlantic Beach Florida
Posts: 1,939
Mentioned: 18 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3770 Post(s)
Liked 1,036 Times
in
784 Posts
It's not my idea about mitochondria, rather it's just the science. Aerobic exercise build more mitochondria. However, exercising in the higher zones makes for more powerful mitochondria. One makes mitochondria and the other makes mitochondria stronger.
In other words, to boost the amount of mitochondria you need volume and the harder (higher intensity) you ride the more your volume goes down. If you're training in zone 3, AKA the Gray zone, you're neither building mitochondria, nor improving their function. All you're doing is stressing your body, but granted, it does feel like you did a good workout after you're done, but that's just a misconception in most cases.
see here https://www.runnersworld.com/trainin...-mitochondria/
Seller is the most misunderstood and incorrectly quoted person on the bike internet.
Polarized training is touted by everyone who thinks they've stumbled on to the newest training secret, except that hardly anyone actually understands it, and even less actually use it in cycling.
Pretty inapplicable and very much at odds with other well-known cycling and running training gurus.
Polarized training is touted by everyone who thinks they've stumbled on to the newest training secret, except that hardly anyone actually understands it, and even less actually use it in cycling.
Pretty inapplicable and very much at odds with other well-known cycling and running training gurus.
BTW, what you have above is a table from the Sweet Spot training program, which is for endurance athletes. But this thread is not about training for any particular event, rather it's about people's opinion on "Junk Miles".
This is an interesting article on the merits of both SST and Polarized Training. I don't do either, but I do follow the concepts of riding easy, but with some really hard stuff thrown in. Easy days are easy and hard days are hard and it's always best to err on the side of doing an easy ride than needlessly over-training. I know that from experience.
Sweet Spot, Threshold and Polarized Training ? By the Numbers ? Xert
.
Likes For work4bike:
09-04-20, 07:25 PM
#28
Senior Member
Im with rubik (as I generally am) that easy rides are useless for any type of performance benefit. I am easily able to throw in one hour rides with my 9 y/o around the neighborhood everyday on top of my 10hrs a week of actual training. It’s not going to hurt me but it isn’t going to make me any better either. I do like 50-70w on these rides, so very much z1
anyhow I have seen tempo rides be classified as junk miles because old school thinking was that tempo didn’t allow you to accumulate as much time and was more fatiguing than endurance rides. I followed exclusively sweet spot plan with trainerroad and that high tempo/low threshold zone is certainly not junk. So while there are certain rides that are junk as far as not really contributing to improvements, I think ultimately the notion of junk miles is based on some outdated dogma
adding one more thought: generally I wouldn’t really think a 60min z2 session is worth doing and I’d almost classify it as junk miles, but within the context of a well designed plan can help with additional aerobic time and a bit of a recovery from harder workouts within a training progression.
anyhow I have seen tempo rides be classified as junk miles because old school thinking was that tempo didn’t allow you to accumulate as much time and was more fatiguing than endurance rides. I followed exclusively sweet spot plan with trainerroad and that high tempo/low threshold zone is certainly not junk. So while there are certain rides that are junk as far as not really contributing to improvements, I think ultimately the notion of junk miles is based on some outdated dogma
adding one more thought: generally I wouldn’t really think a 60min z2 session is worth doing and I’d almost classify it as junk miles, but within the context of a well designed plan can help with additional aerobic time and a bit of a recovery from harder workouts within a training progression.
Likes For hubcyclist:
09-05-20, 01:34 AM
#29
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2014
Location: USA
Posts: 1,820
Bikes: 1996 Trek 970 ZX Single Track 2x11
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 614 Post(s)
Liked 564 Times
in
428 Posts
The only junk miles are when you force yourself to ride when you should be recovering. Easy rides are NOT junk miles. You don't need to push it at a certain level to have gains, every mile you logged is like money in the bank, unless you're doing it when your body truly needs resting.
Check out this video, it makes a great point on how many of us (I use to be one of them) cyclists, runners push it way too hard, during all of our rides. I still do speed work and good hard rides, but I also learned that I need to take it easy on much of my rides.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MALsI0mJ09I&t=15s
Check out this video, it makes a great point on how many of us (I use to be one of them) cyclists, runners push it way too hard, during all of our rides. I still do speed work and good hard rides, but I also learned that I need to take it easy on much of my rides.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MALsI0mJ09I&t=15s
^ Good reference and information about how "hard" without sufficient recovery can be the death knell for performance gains, for most folks.
My own performance sport was running, back in the day, but the principles worked. Hard, focused training on key areas yielded extraordinary benefits, but only if sufficient variation and recovery/rest between the hard sessions was done (along with decent nutrition and sleep, of course). The "down" training could still be of benefit, if sufficiently quick to still get the cardio going, but not so pushy as to derail the recovery aspect.
Likes For Clyde1820:
09-05-20, 04:35 AM
#30
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Music City, USA
Posts: 4,444
Bikes: bikes
Mentioned: 52 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2622 Post(s)
Liked 1,429 Times
in
711 Posts
I admit, I'm a little loose on the the definition of an easy ride, I've seen it listed anywhere from 50 - 70%, which is pretty easy in my experience.
It's not my idea about mitochondria, rather it's just the science. Aerobic exercise build more mitochondria. However, exercising in the higher zones makes for more powerful mitochondria. One makes mitochondria and the other makes mitochondria stronger.
In other words, to boost the amount of mitochondria you need volume and the harder (higher intensity) you ride the more your volume goes down. If you're training in zone 3, AKA the Gray zone, you're neither building mitochondria, nor improving their function. All you're doing is stressing your body, but granted, it does feel like you did a good workout after you're done, but that's just a misconception in most cases.
.
It's not my idea about mitochondria, rather it's just the science. Aerobic exercise build more mitochondria. However, exercising in the higher zones makes for more powerful mitochondria. One makes mitochondria and the other makes mitochondria stronger.
In other words, to boost the amount of mitochondria you need volume and the harder (higher intensity) you ride the more your volume goes down. If you're training in zone 3, AKA the Gray zone, you're neither building mitochondria, nor improving their function. All you're doing is stressing your body, but granted, it does feel like you did a good workout after you're done, but that's just a misconception in most cases.
.
All of your riding is aerobic. Any effort over 30-40 secs is primarily aerobic. Your "gray zone" is smack dab in the middle of some of the most conducive training you can do (zone 3-4 in the above chart).
I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that you're stressing the body but getting nothing done. This is just silliness. It's one of the most time-efficient training zones you can do. In winter time, 50-70% of my training is in z3-z4 (power). I've built up to 3 hours of sweetspot in the past, and my fitness was absolutely raging. I won multiple p/1/2 races after that winter.
09-05-20, 04:45 AM
#31
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Music City, USA
Posts: 4,444
Bikes: bikes
Mentioned: 52 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2622 Post(s)
Liked 1,429 Times
in
711 Posts
His name is Seiler, not Seller. And I never misquoted him, that's why I always provide a link. I wasn't so much promoting Polarized training, since that's what Dr Seiler was specifically addressing. Rather referencing the link just for the excerpts and such about the importance of riding easy.
BTW, what you have above is a table from the Sweet Spot training program, which is for endurance athletes. But this thread is not about training for any particular event, rather it's about people's opinion on "Junk Miles".
This is an interesting article on the merits of both SST and Polarized Training. I don't do either, but I do follow the concepts of riding easy, but with some really hard stuff thrown in. Easy days are easy and hard days are hard and it's always best to err on the side of doing an easy ride than needlessly over-training. I know that from experience.
.
BTW, what you have above is a table from the Sweet Spot training program, which is for endurance athletes. But this thread is not about training for any particular event, rather it's about people's opinion on "Junk Miles".
This is an interesting article on the merits of both SST and Polarized Training. I don't do either, but I do follow the concepts of riding easy, but with some really hard stuff thrown in. Easy days are easy and hard days are hard and it's always best to err on the side of doing an easy ride than needlessly over-training. I know that from experience.
.
Cycling is an endurance sport. If the OP is doing anything more than riding around the parking lot, that chart encapsulates the curve of adaptations quite well. I've never heard that chart called the "sweet spot program", since it's not. It's an overview of particular training zones. What you do with those zones can be put in just about any training. If you're prepping for an hour long time trial or hill climb, you'll be smack dab in the middle of sweetspot and threshold riding for a good chunk of that.
In addition, and probably the most relevant to nearly all of us, if you're training generally consists of less than 10-2 hours a week, you'll likely be utilizing a lot of riding at those two levels. It's bang-for-the-buck training more than anything. This is why it's such a huge boon in the winter months and rebuild portions of the season. Contrary to your assertions, not only are you getting the most adaptations, but you can do those sessions repeatedly throughout the week.
Likes For rubiksoval:
09-05-20, 06:09 AM
#32
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Atlantic Beach Florida
Posts: 1,939
Mentioned: 18 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3770 Post(s)
Liked 1,036 Times
in
784 Posts
Again, you're conflating running and cycling (even though that's inaccurate for running, too).
All of your riding is aerobic. Any effort over 30-40 secs is primarily aerobic. Your "gray zone" is smack dab in the middle of some of the most conducive training you can do (zone 3-4 in the above chart).
I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that you're stressing the body but getting nothing done. This is just silliness. It's one of the most time-efficient training zones you can do. In winter time, 50-70% of my training is in z3-z4 (power). I've built up to 3 hours of sweetspot in the past, and my fitness was absolutely raging. I won multiple p/1/2 races after that winter.
All of your riding is aerobic. Any effort over 30-40 secs is primarily aerobic. Your "gray zone" is smack dab in the middle of some of the most conducive training you can do (zone 3-4 in the above chart).
I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that you're stressing the body but getting nothing done. This is just silliness. It's one of the most time-efficient training zones you can do. In winter time, 50-70% of my training is in z3-z4 (power). I've built up to 3 hours of sweetspot in the past, and my fitness was absolutely raging. I won multiple p/1/2 races after that winter.
I don't know how you train, I'm not saying, you're training wrong, I'm simply saying most people who cycle for health, tend to do it mostly in zone 3, because if feels like you're accomplishing something, but at the same time, you're not dead to the world, because you didn't go deep in the red, but at the same time all you did was add more stress.
Again, this is not me saying this, it's all over the place. There's much benefit from easy rides, despite many zone 3'ers thinking they're junk miles. https://triathlonmagazine.ca/blogs/c...ing-gray-zone/
Excerpt:
Wondering why you aren’t making linear improvements in your triathlon game? Have you ever considered you may be training too hard too often or too easy? If you are just training “by feel”, chances are that you are not getting the maximum benefits possible out of your training sessions.The key to making improvements in endurance sport is to improve aerobic efficiency while also stimulating muscle adaptation and recruitment. This requires training at a variety of paces.
The biggest mistake that most triathletes make is spending too much time training in the “grey area”. This means spending the majority of training time at the same intensity. That intensity is usually similar to what many would call “moderate” or maybe “tempo”. There is a time and place for this intensity, but many of us tend to use it way too often.
The biggest mistake that most triathletes make is spending too much time training in the “grey area”. This means spending the majority of training time at the same intensity. That intensity is usually similar to what many would call “moderate” or maybe “tempo”. There is a time and place for this intensity, but many of us tend to use it way too often.
Last edited by work4bike; 09-05-20 at 06:17 AM.
Likes For work4bike:
09-05-20, 06:31 AM
#33
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Atlantic Beach Florida
Posts: 1,939
Mentioned: 18 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3770 Post(s)
Liked 1,036 Times
in
784 Posts
P.S....I just want to address this issue of conflating Running and Cycling. In one sense I am, because most of what I've read on this subject comes from my running experience. Actually the first time I heard the term "Junk Miles" was in the running world and that's when I first started reading about this issue. However, may primary activity is cycling, I've been cycling for over 30 years.
This is where running and cycling is very similar, both sports people feel as if they must run/ride at a certain pace, given their current abilities, and everyone is trying to get faster and go longer. I do know, from experience that my HR while running is totally different than when I'm cycling; 150bpm while running feels much different than 150bpm while cycling. That's partly why I'm a little loosey-goosey on HR zones. They are definitely different between running and cycling, for me at least.
Whether I'm running or cycling, I tend to try and go slower than I feel like I want to go. I am a lance-wannabe on the bike and I do a lot of sprinting and if I'm not careful I will ride in that gray zone and I can do it all day, but when I do have the discipline to ride slower I can feel the difference in my body at the end of the day. The same is true for running.
.
This is where running and cycling is very similar, both sports people feel as if they must run/ride at a certain pace, given their current abilities, and everyone is trying to get faster and go longer. I do know, from experience that my HR while running is totally different than when I'm cycling; 150bpm while running feels much different than 150bpm while cycling. That's partly why I'm a little loosey-goosey on HR zones. They are definitely different between running and cycling, for me at least.
Whether I'm running or cycling, I tend to try and go slower than I feel like I want to go. I am a lance-wannabe on the bike and I do a lot of sprinting and if I'm not careful I will ride in that gray zone and I can do it all day, but when I do have the discipline to ride slower I can feel the difference in my body at the end of the day. The same is true for running.
.
Likes For work4bike:
09-05-20, 09:33 AM
#34
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Music City, USA
Posts: 4,444
Bikes: bikes
Mentioned: 52 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2622 Post(s)
Liked 1,429 Times
in
711 Posts
Because that's what most people do when they go out for a ride (or run), they hit the middle ground, because if feels like they're doing something. That's fine, but when you do it over and over and over, it leads to stress. Over time you kind of get use to that feeling of stress.
I don't know how you train, I'm not saying, you're training wrong, I'm simply saying most people who cycle for health, tend to do it mostly in zone 3, because if feels like you're accomplishing something, but at the same time, you're not dead to the world, because you didn't go deep in the red, but at the same time all you did was add more stress.
I don't know how you train, I'm not saying, you're training wrong, I'm simply saying most people who cycle for health, tend to do it mostly in zone 3, because if feels like you're accomplishing something, but at the same time, you're not dead to the world, because you didn't go deep in the red, but at the same time all you did was add more stress.
We're not talking about people cycling for health. At all. We're talking about optimizing training.
Two, most people DEFINITELY do not train in zone 3. If you're not familiar with training with power, then this is a foreign concept, and you're simply not going to understand how much most people are coasting and pedaling in zone 1 during a ride. HR is a nonsequitor at this point, and belies the reality of the actual training situation.
I don't think the conversation can progress at this point. If your background is only in running and hr training, then this is all fairly moot.
Likes For rubiksoval:
09-05-20, 09:35 AM
#35
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Music City, USA
Posts: 4,444
Bikes: bikes
Mentioned: 52 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2622 Post(s)
Liked 1,429 Times
in
711 Posts
P.S....I just want to address this issue of conflating Running and Cycling. In one sense I am, because most of what I've read on this subject comes from my running experience. Actually the first time I heard the term "Junk Miles" was in the running world and that's when I first started reading about this issue. However, may primary activity is cycling, I've been cycling for over 30 years.
This is where running and cycling is very similar
.
This is where running and cycling is very similar
.
Likes For rubiksoval:
09-05-20, 11:18 AM
#36
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Atlantic Beach Florida
Posts: 1,939
Mentioned: 18 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3770 Post(s)
Liked 1,036 Times
in
784 Posts
You're moving the goalposts again. You've done it repeatedly.
We're not talking about people cycling for health. At all. We're talking about optimizing training.
Two, most people DEFINITELY do not train in zone 3. If you're not familiar with training with power, then this is a foreign concept, and you're simply not going to understand how much most people are coasting and pedaling in zone 1 during a ride. HR is a nonsequitor at this point, and belies the reality of the actual training situation. I agree, HR is a non sequitur and I've not used that as a standard. It's all about your intensity level, i.e. HR zone.
I don't think the conversation can progress at this point. If your background is only in running and hr training, then this is all fairly moot.
We're not talking about people cycling for health. At all. We're talking about optimizing training.
Two, most people DEFINITELY do not train in zone 3. If you're not familiar with training with power, then this is a foreign concept, and you're simply not going to understand how much most people are coasting and pedaling in zone 1 during a ride. HR is a nonsequitor at this point, and belies the reality of the actual training situation. I agree, HR is a non sequitur and I've not used that as a standard. It's all about your intensity level, i.e. HR zone.
I don't think the conversation can progress at this point. If your background is only in running and hr training, then this is all fairly moot.
I've always been talking about people that ride for health; however, it's a moot point, since this thing of riding in zone 3 for the bulk of one's ride is a very common mistake made, both by professional/elite cyclists and those of us that do it simply for health (among other reasons...). So, in that respect the goal post remains the same.
I'm very familiar with the concept of training by power and I agree it has many benefits over training by HR or by speed/pace...However, even in training by power one must be cognizant of their level of intensity, i.e. their HR zone (Emphasis, not their HR, but their zone). All the studies show that MOST people do train in zone 3, professionals and otherwise. I've noticed in my riding style, like I said before, I really have to discipline myself to not ride too long in zone 3, but I could, because I've done it for years and my body has just adapted to it.
When you say, most people are coasting around at zone 1, then it depends on which population of riders. I would not agree with that point for people that are looking to obtain good health from cycling.
However, if you look at the vast majority of people that ride up and down the beach road (near my house), and they only get on a bike once in a while or even more frequently, because it's more convenient to go to the beach or because it's nostalgic, or because they're worried about climate change, or they just like being outside. Then yes, that group usually sticks to zone 1. And some of them probably think the bike is making them healthy, but if that's all they do, then no it's not. I would agree those are junk miles, assuming they think it's healthy to do that. The body does need to be pushed every so often to truly stay healthy.
Again, yes, with respect to pushing oneself, running a cycling is very comparable in that area.
I found a cycling link for you that talks about the zone 3 rut many cyclists fall into.
https://pezcyclingnews.com/toolbox/t...ne-3-syndrome/
Just a small excerpt and I definitely understand the mindset of wanting to do a hammerfest, but often we do it way too much, but the body is very adaptable and over time it gets use to it, but it's also why so many hit a plateau.
Even those who don’t consciously embrace this antiquated training methodology often fall to its pretty clutches when they get caught up in the group ride hammerfest mentality. Even when they set out for a moderate or easy recovery ride, they can’t resist the temptation to jump on with the first group that comes flying by. The pace skyrockets at the rise in the road and the end result is the same – a never ending string of high tempo riding with little to no recovery.
The result of this type of training is an ailment I call the “Zone 3 Syndrome”. Before we get into the syndrome itself, let’s do a little self-diagnosis. Start by asking yourself the following questions:
The result of this type of training is an ailment I call the “Zone 3 Syndrome”. Before we get into the syndrome itself, let’s do a little self-diagnosis. Start by asking yourself the following questions:
Likes For work4bike:
09-05-20, 01:28 PM
#37
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Music City, USA
Posts: 4,444
Bikes: bikes
Mentioned: 52 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2622 Post(s)
Liked 1,429 Times
in
711 Posts
At this point you're pretty much just replying to your own posts and repeating your erroneous and seemingly made-up assertions. Most professionals train in zone 3? How many professionals do you actually know? Ridden with? Raced with? Even if it's zero, a quick look on Strava would show how that's simply not true in the least.
It's extremely obvious you have little to no understanding of power, and your insistence on perpetuating tangents related to general health and running have absolutely nothing to do with the discussion.
It's extremely obvious you have little to no understanding of power, and your insistence on perpetuating tangents related to general health and running have absolutely nothing to do with the discussion.
Likes For rubiksoval:
09-06-20, 04:53 AM
#40
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Music City, USA
Posts: 4,444
Bikes: bikes
Mentioned: 52 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2622 Post(s)
Liked 1,429 Times
in
711 Posts
Thanks for the on-going discussion. Very interesting.
I do not know whether the “polarized” training program is optimal or if I even understand it. But for a casual rider like me who wants some training benefit but also just likes to ride my bike it has a lot of appeal to have two hard rides a week and a bunch of easy rides.
From listening to the arguments it seems that such a program would give me a lot of benefit. Not train me to be a competitive racer, but a solidly fit old geezer.
Do you think with such a program, I can ride every day as long as do not go hard enough to interfere too much with my hard days?
I like to ride everyday. I think riding every day is good for my Rheumatoid Arthritis symptom management. It seems to help me avoid needing to take anti-inflammatory drugs. I have also reduced my dosage of Methotrexate which is the primary disease modifier I use.
I attribute much of the RA benefit I am experiencing to my weekly long ride. But I think the daily rides help too.
I do not know whether the “polarized” training program is optimal or if I even understand it. But for a casual rider like me who wants some training benefit but also just likes to ride my bike it has a lot of appeal to have two hard rides a week and a bunch of easy rides.
From listening to the arguments it seems that such a program would give me a lot of benefit. Not train me to be a competitive racer, but a solidly fit old geezer.
Do you think with such a program, I can ride every day as long as do not go hard enough to interfere too much with my hard days?
I like to ride everyday. I think riding every day is good for my Rheumatoid Arthritis symptom management. It seems to help me avoid needing to take anti-inflammatory drugs. I have also reduced my dosage of Methotrexate which is the primary disease modifier I use.
I attribute much of the RA benefit I am experiencing to my weekly long ride. But I think the daily rides help too.
It's not that an easier ride is a bad thing. It's that there are rides that are too easy to really do anything. Going out and doing a couple-few hours of zone 2 a few days a week can certainly get challenging after a day or two if it's a new stimulus, even if the intensity is not relatively high.
Likes For rubiksoval:
09-06-20, 09:13 AM
#41
Full Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2020
Location: Central Florida
Posts: 226
Bikes: 1991 Diamondback Apex, 2015 Trek Verve 3, 2020 Specialized Diverge
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 143 Post(s)
Liked 116 Times
in
58 Posts
Thanks again for the continued discussion. Lots of useful perspectives shared. I am going to go back and study the comments as well as the links. Very helpful.
In the past, I have monitored heart rate from time to time, but have never trained to heart rate. I followed a Galloway program to train for a half marathon a while back. Jeff Galloway is not a believer in training to heart rate. I never found heart rate training particularly useful for running.
I have been monitoring my heart rate more closely during my recent bike riding phase. I have been riding 70 to 110 miles a week for the past six weeks. My resting heart rate as gone from about 60 to about 53.
I have been working with an estimated max heart rate of 175. My age predicted on the 220 minus age formula is 160 (I am age 60). Other more accurate formulas have my age predicted max at high 160’s to low 170’s.
My highest measured heart rate recently was 185. I think that may have been a measurement aberration. Hard parts of my work out tend to get in the high 150s to low 160s.
I have found it more difficult to get my heart rate up as I have become more fit. I used to be able to get high 160s to low 170s running hill repeats. But I have not gotten that high recently. I attribute that to better fitness and it takes a bigger effort to get my heart rate up.
Having spent the last six months establishing a base, I intend to push my mid-week tempo training a bit more. It will be interesting to see how high I get my heart rate with this training.
Based on a 175 max heart rate, Strava gives me five heart rate zones; 0 to 103, 103 to 136, 136 to 153, 153 to 169 and greater than 169. My distance training tends to fall in zones 2 and 3. High zone 2 and low zone 3.
Strava gives me seven power zones these seem to be based on an estimated FTP of 166 W. It provides percentages for each zone which do not match what I have actually done so I assume these are recommended. it shows the most in zone 1 and next most in zone 7. The percentage in zone 1 could be right. It is below 91 watts. I do not think I have hit zone 7 at all yet according to these zones. My rides average 100 to 130 watts. Long rides and easy rides around 100, tempo rides closer to 130. I have not done any really focused tempo rides yet. I will be interested to see what such a ride look like.
I do not really understand what this means. But I am working on understanding it better.
In the past, I have monitored heart rate from time to time, but have never trained to heart rate. I followed a Galloway program to train for a half marathon a while back. Jeff Galloway is not a believer in training to heart rate. I never found heart rate training particularly useful for running.
I have been monitoring my heart rate more closely during my recent bike riding phase. I have been riding 70 to 110 miles a week for the past six weeks. My resting heart rate as gone from about 60 to about 53.
I have been working with an estimated max heart rate of 175. My age predicted on the 220 minus age formula is 160 (I am age 60). Other more accurate formulas have my age predicted max at high 160’s to low 170’s.
My highest measured heart rate recently was 185. I think that may have been a measurement aberration. Hard parts of my work out tend to get in the high 150s to low 160s.
I have found it more difficult to get my heart rate up as I have become more fit. I used to be able to get high 160s to low 170s running hill repeats. But I have not gotten that high recently. I attribute that to better fitness and it takes a bigger effort to get my heart rate up.
Having spent the last six months establishing a base, I intend to push my mid-week tempo training a bit more. It will be interesting to see how high I get my heart rate with this training.
Based on a 175 max heart rate, Strava gives me five heart rate zones; 0 to 103, 103 to 136, 136 to 153, 153 to 169 and greater than 169. My distance training tends to fall in zones 2 and 3. High zone 2 and low zone 3.
Strava gives me seven power zones these seem to be based on an estimated FTP of 166 W. It provides percentages for each zone which do not match what I have actually done so I assume these are recommended. it shows the most in zone 1 and next most in zone 7. The percentage in zone 1 could be right. It is below 91 watts. I do not think I have hit zone 7 at all yet according to these zones. My rides average 100 to 130 watts. Long rides and easy rides around 100, tempo rides closer to 130. I have not done any really focused tempo rides yet. I will be interested to see what such a ride look like.
I do not really understand what this means. But I am working on understanding it better.
09-06-20, 06:35 PM
#42
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Atlantic Beach Florida
Posts: 1,939
Mentioned: 18 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3770 Post(s)
Liked 1,036 Times
in
784 Posts
Thanks again for the continued discussion. Lots of useful perspectives shared. I am going to go back and study the comments as well as the links. Very helpful.
In the past, I have monitored heart rate from time to time, but have never trained to heart rate. I followed a Galloway program to train for a half marathon a while back. Jeff Galloway is not a believer in training to heart rate. I never found heart rate training particularly useful for running.
I have been monitoring my heart rate more closely during my recent bike riding phase. I have been riding 70 to 110 miles a week for the past six weeks. My resting heart rate as gone from about 60 to about 53.
I have been working with an estimated max heart rate of 175. My age predicted on the 220 minus age formula is 160 (I am age 60). Other more accurate formulas have my age predicted max at high 160’s to low 170’s.
My highest measured heart rate recently was 185. I think that may have been a measurement aberration. Hard parts of my work out tend to get in the high 150s to low 160s.
I have found it more difficult to get my heart rate up as I have become more fit. I used to be able to get high 160s to low 170s running hill repeats. But I have not gotten that high recently. I attribute that to better fitness and it takes a bigger effort to get my heart rate up.
Having spent the last six months establishing a base, I intend to push my mid-week tempo training a bit more. It will be interesting to see how high I get my heart rate with this training.
Based on a 175 max heart rate, Strava gives me five heart rate zones; 0 to 103, 103 to 136, 136 to 153, 153 to 169 and greater than 169. My distance training tends to fall in zones 2 and 3. High zone 2 and low zone 3.
Strava gives me seven power zones these seem to be based on an estimated FTP of 166 W. It provides percentages for each zone which do not match what I have actually done so I assume these are recommended. it shows the most in zone 1 and next most in zone 7. The percentage in zone 1 could be right. It is below 91 watts. I do not think I have hit zone 7 at all yet according to these zones. My rides average 100 to 130 watts. Long rides and easy rides around 100, tempo rides closer to 130. I have not done any really focused tempo rides yet. I will be interested to see what such a ride look like.
I do not really understand what this means. But I am working on understanding it better.
In the past, I have monitored heart rate from time to time, but have never trained to heart rate. I followed a Galloway program to train for a half marathon a while back. Jeff Galloway is not a believer in training to heart rate. I never found heart rate training particularly useful for running.
I have been monitoring my heart rate more closely during my recent bike riding phase. I have been riding 70 to 110 miles a week for the past six weeks. My resting heart rate as gone from about 60 to about 53.
I have been working with an estimated max heart rate of 175. My age predicted on the 220 minus age formula is 160 (I am age 60). Other more accurate formulas have my age predicted max at high 160’s to low 170’s.
My highest measured heart rate recently was 185. I think that may have been a measurement aberration. Hard parts of my work out tend to get in the high 150s to low 160s.
I have found it more difficult to get my heart rate up as I have become more fit. I used to be able to get high 160s to low 170s running hill repeats. But I have not gotten that high recently. I attribute that to better fitness and it takes a bigger effort to get my heart rate up.
Having spent the last six months establishing a base, I intend to push my mid-week tempo training a bit more. It will be interesting to see how high I get my heart rate with this training.
Based on a 175 max heart rate, Strava gives me five heart rate zones; 0 to 103, 103 to 136, 136 to 153, 153 to 169 and greater than 169. My distance training tends to fall in zones 2 and 3. High zone 2 and low zone 3.
Strava gives me seven power zones these seem to be based on an estimated FTP of 166 W. It provides percentages for each zone which do not match what I have actually done so I assume these are recommended. it shows the most in zone 1 and next most in zone 7. The percentage in zone 1 could be right. It is below 91 watts. I do not think I have hit zone 7 at all yet according to these zones. My rides average 100 to 130 watts. Long rides and easy rides around 100, tempo rides closer to 130. I have not done any really focused tempo rides yet. I will be interested to see what such a ride look like.
I do not really understand what this means. But I am working on understanding it better.
What's really important about cardio health, among other things, is knowing how fast the HR drops after a max (or near max) effort. https://www.berkeleywellness.com/fit...nd-your-health
How quickly should your heart rate drop after exercise?
The length of time it takes for heart rate to return to normal is a good measure of fitness. The more fit you are, the faster the recovery.Your heart rate drops most sharply in the first minute after you stop exercising; it should then fall about 20 beats a minute—a drop of less than 12 beats a minute is considered abnormal. This “recovery heart rate” is measured as part of an exercise stress test.
I wear a HR monitor every time I run/cycle, but I do NOT train by HR. HR is just too variable and a lot of things can affect it -- Don't become a slave to the numbers.
And, I never use those optical HR sensors, like what is on most watches or wrist-worn fitness trackers. I've seen tests with them and I don't trust them, based on those tests and what I've read about them; from what I understand they're fairly accurate until you start going really hard or if it gets too wet from sweat. I'll stick with the chest strap monitors.
.
Likes For work4bike:
09-06-20, 08:06 PM
#43
Full Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2020
Location: Central Florida
Posts: 226
Bikes: 1991 Diamondback Apex, 2015 Trek Verve 3, 2020 Specialized Diverge
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 143 Post(s)
Liked 116 Times
in
58 Posts
I usually use the chest HR monitor. But my watch has the wrist optical scanner. I have experimented with both and I find the optical scanner on the watch to be pretty close. The wrist optical scanner may be less accurate for very precise short period monitoring.
I have not done a lot of recovery analysis. I have a finger pulse monitor that also measures O2 saturation. I sometimes use that for recover monitoring.
I found it can take more than 24 hours to get back to normal resting pulse rate and O2 saturation after a heavy work out.
I have not done a lot of recovery analysis. I have a finger pulse monitor that also measures O2 saturation. I sometimes use that for recover monitoring.
I found it can take more than 24 hours to get back to normal resting pulse rate and O2 saturation after a heavy work out.
09-07-20, 09:25 AM
#44
Version 7.0
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: SoCal
Posts: 13,122
Bikes: Too Many
Mentioned: 297 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1338 Post(s)
Liked 2,478 Times
in
1,453 Posts
Since I have started training and racing, by definition, I do no have any junk miles. The reason is every ride has a purpose / goal and the goal may be recovery, just ride as I feel, do group ride A, do structure B and etc.
For example, group rides have a lot of coasting and z1. Are those junk miles? Well they are unproductive for sure but the goal is ride in a group which builds pack skills and has a lot of accelerations and hard shorter duration efforts that are above ones comfort zone. So coaches and athletes accept the coasting and z1 riding as necessary evils or to make it positive try to do as much coasting and z1 as possible in a group ride to effectively hide in the peloton and practice staying out of the wind - the lower the power the better.
There are many ways to view easy miles that seem to have no purpose.
If the goal is to build long time aerobic power then one needs to ride solo pushing the wind and low pedal efforts for that ride are a waste of time and indicate that one needs to train ones brain to keep the effort high and ignore unpleasant sensations.
If the goal is to ride a century during a charity ride and hop onto and draft fast groups and etc then one needs to do long rides and by definition those are going to have a lot of z1 and z2 efforts. If training / practice rides are done with a group of similar ability then there will be even more low quality efforts BUT one will be on the bike for hours - which is good.
If the goal is a 5 hour solo century, then one needs long rides plus constant effort that generates 20 mph for hours on terrain that is a proxy for the century course.
As a final not, I hate low effort rides such as recovery rides. They just kill my sit bones. When I am putting in more pedal force, it eases the pressure on my sit bones. And I like to go fast. YMMV.
For example, group rides have a lot of coasting and z1. Are those junk miles? Well they are unproductive for sure but the goal is ride in a group which builds pack skills and has a lot of accelerations and hard shorter duration efforts that are above ones comfort zone. So coaches and athletes accept the coasting and z1 riding as necessary evils or to make it positive try to do as much coasting and z1 as possible in a group ride to effectively hide in the peloton and practice staying out of the wind - the lower the power the better.
There are many ways to view easy miles that seem to have no purpose.
If the goal is to build long time aerobic power then one needs to ride solo pushing the wind and low pedal efforts for that ride are a waste of time and indicate that one needs to train ones brain to keep the effort high and ignore unpleasant sensations.
If the goal is to ride a century during a charity ride and hop onto and draft fast groups and etc then one needs to do long rides and by definition those are going to have a lot of z1 and z2 efforts. If training / practice rides are done with a group of similar ability then there will be even more low quality efforts BUT one will be on the bike for hours - which is good.
If the goal is a 5 hour solo century, then one needs long rides plus constant effort that generates 20 mph for hours on terrain that is a proxy for the century course.
As a final not, I hate low effort rides such as recovery rides. They just kill my sit bones. When I am putting in more pedal force, it eases the pressure on my sit bones. And I like to go fast. YMMV.
Last edited by Hermes; 09-07-20 at 09:29 AM.
Likes For Hermes:
09-07-20, 06:40 PM
#45
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Music City, USA
Posts: 4,444
Bikes: bikes
Mentioned: 52 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2622 Post(s)
Liked 1,429 Times
in
711 Posts
Strava gives me seven power zones these seem to be based on an estimated FTP of 166 W. It provides percentages for each zone which do not match what I have actually done so I assume these are recommended. it shows the most in zone 1 and next most in zone 7. The percentage in zone 1 could be right. It is below 91 watts. I do not think I have hit zone 7 at all yet according to these zones. My rides average 100 to 130 watts. Long rides and easy rides around 100, tempo rides closer to 130. I have not done any really focused tempo rides yet. I will be interested to see what such a ride look like.
I do not really understand what this means. But I am working on understanding it better.
I do not really understand what this means. But I am working on understanding it better.
Likes For rubiksoval:
09-08-20, 07:20 AM
#46
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Rural Missouri - mostly central and southeastern
Posts: 3,013
Bikes: 2003 LeMond -various other junk bikes
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 78 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 44 Times
in
35 Posts
I guess this thread could have easily taken an even more confusing turn if the OP had added the question - What do people mean when they refer to riding "quality miles?"
Most of you have already done a great job of explaining that "junk miles" refers to bicycling a distance with no specific focus on training benefit or fitness gains.
I really like the the comments that include words like "focus" - because after all, if you try to train with or advise people who do not share your attention to cycling performance your advice is not likely to be understood or used anyway.
My perspective suggests that we all want to "train like the pros" - but very few of us are willing to prioritize our time and focus and discipline our cycling efforts to do so.
Most of you have already done a great job of explaining that "junk miles" refers to bicycling a distance with no specific focus on training benefit or fitness gains.
I really like the the comments that include words like "focus" - because after all, if you try to train with or advise people who do not share your attention to cycling performance your advice is not likely to be understood or used anyway.
My perspective suggests that we all want to "train like the pros" - but very few of us are willing to prioritize our time and focus and discipline our cycling efforts to do so.
Likes For Richard Cranium:
09-08-20, 04:18 PM
#47
Full Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2020
Location: Central Florida
Posts: 226
Bikes: 1991 Diamondback Apex, 2015 Trek Verve 3, 2020 Specialized Diverge
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 143 Post(s)
Liked 116 Times
in
58 Posts
I agree 100%. The best threads are the ones when people have different opinions. It is a great opportunity to hear a variety of opinions. This thread has given a lot of great information and sent me off to do more research and reach my own conclusions.
Very helpful!
Very helpful!
09-09-20, 12:24 AM
#48
velo-dilettante
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: insane diego, california
Posts: 8,315
Bikes: 85 pinarello treviso steel, 88 nishiki olympic steel. 95 look kg 131 carbon, 11 trek madone 5.2 carbon
Mentioned: 26 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1627 Post(s)
Liked 3,112 Times
in
1,682 Posts
so is a "recovery mile" after a hard interval a junk mile? how about a "cool-down mile" (or five) after a decently-paced/mountain century? asking for a friend...
i'll take a junk mile any day (not working on cardio, pushing the big ring/biggest gear) over sitting on the couch. different riders have different objectives/wants/needs/constraints/hangups.
if a junk mile is pushing < 400w...then 95% of my miles are junk miles. happy to be a junkman.
i'll take a junk mile any day (not working on cardio, pushing the big ring/biggest gear) over sitting on the couch. different riders have different objectives/wants/needs/constraints/hangups.
if a junk mile is pushing < 400w...then 95% of my miles are junk miles. happy to be a junkman.
Last edited by diphthong; 09-09-20 at 12:38 AM.
Likes For diphthong:
09-09-20, 04:03 AM
#49
Full Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2020
Location: Central Florida
Posts: 226
Bikes: 1991 Diamondback Apex, 2015 Trek Verve 3, 2020 Specialized Diverge
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 143 Post(s)
Liked 116 Times
in
58 Posts
so is a "recovery mile" after a hard interval a junk mile? how about a "cool-down mile" (or five) after a decently-paced/mountain century? asking for a friend...
i'll take a junk mile any day (not working on cardio, pushing the big ring/biggest gear) over sitting on the couch. different riders have different objectives/wants/needs/constraints/hangups.
if a junk mile is pushing < 400w...then 95% of my miles are junk miles. happy to be a junkman.
i'll take a junk mile any day (not working on cardio, pushing the big ring/biggest gear) over sitting on the couch. different riders have different objectives/wants/needs/constraints/hangups.
if a junk mile is pushing < 400w...then 95% of my miles are junk miles. happy to be a junkman.
Part of what I train for is to ride my bike. I train to live I do not live to train. YMMV
09-09-20, 06:49 AM
#50
Full Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2020
Location: Central Florida
Posts: 226
Bikes: 1991 Diamondback Apex, 2015 Trek Verve 3, 2020 Specialized Diverge
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 143 Post(s)
Liked 116 Times
in
58 Posts
Not as much for me recently.
But few weeks ago when I was focusing training at aero position on the bike, easy pedaling (recovery rides) enabled me to ride comfortably in the position for much longer periods. When I finally became quite well adapted to the position, I crossed out recovery rides from weekly training again. I recently ordered parts that will get me even lower (more aero) on the bike. If I find it uncomfortable initially, then I may have to do recovery days again.
Recovery rides can actually be useful in things other than recovery of the muscles like in position training for example
But few weeks ago when I was focusing training at aero position on the bike, easy pedaling (recovery rides) enabled me to ride comfortably in the position for much longer periods. When I finally became quite well adapted to the position, I crossed out recovery rides from weekly training again. I recently ordered parts that will get me even lower (more aero) on the bike. If I find it uncomfortable initially, then I may have to do recovery days again.
Recovery rides can actually be useful in things other than recovery of the muscles like in position training for example
Right now, I am just looking for general fitness. Less aero is perhaps better since I can get a harder workout at a slower speed.
I might add some inline skating since I really want to get stronger for back country skiing. You spend about 80% of the time skiing up hill and 20% skiing down hill. Skiing up hill at 10,000 feet is really strenuous. Hard to train for that when you live at 70 feet.
Likes For Sorg67: