razorjack

Hi, recently I've started more training on a road bike with HR and power meter.
But I have always a problem to reach high HR, maximum i reach on a bike (road or mtb) is about 91-92%HRm.
You may ask how i know my max, I reached it on few occasions while running or on my road bike - but on a trainer (204bpm).
(FTP 273W - 3.8W/kg - from 20 mins test)
Outside I can reach >90%HRm in 2 mins, but it has to be near-maximum effort - 158%FTP avg from these 2mins (it's my current 2mins max. -431W)
or I can reach >90 on longer sustained effort, like 10 mins in Threshold power.

Last month I was doing VO2max intervals (in PZ5 - 105-120%FTP), but now I realised that maybe I wasn't pushing myself hard enough,
coz I wasn't reaching >90%HRm. I can 'easily' reach 85%, but later it starts to be real difficult, I mean, my legs will die first.
Is it normal? (I know that everyone is a bit different)
Or should I try a bit harder? (next time I'll try hard-start intervals, to be closer to 90%, maybe at the expense of overall duration).
but definitely, more than 92%HRm just doesn't look like possible.
ah, another thing, I ride flats now (it could affect things a bit? but my HRm on a trainer I did on flats too, but final sprint had candence probably way above 100rpm, but i don't have any data from it)
my cadence above 105%FTP is 90-100rpm.

gregf83 

Focus on improving your power and forget about your HR. There’s no value in having a high HR. I hit my highest HR a couple times a year, usually when it’s hot and I’m dehydrated during a hard effort.

MaxHR while cycling can be different than running but should get closer with enough time on the bike.

razorjack

I was just more worried that my VO2Max interval can be not effective, if I don't keep >90%HRm.
but when I do 3min intervals in PZ5 (105-120%FTP), I can accumulate about 15-16 mins, before it starts to be impossible to keep >105%FTP. So I guess it's quite right ?

guachi

Sounds about right. I know I can do 105% of my FTP for 20 minutes because that's how mine (and probably yours) is calculated. I can do 110-112% of my FTP for 12 minutes because the Navy fitness test uses a 12 minute bike as an alternate cardio. So 3 minute intervals for 15+ minutes at somewhere between 105-120% sounds reasonable. I could probably do 120-125% for 5 minutes but I don't think I've ever actually tested it. Best I see on Strava is 117% and that was on a 1hr race where I set a new FTP with a hard 20 minute effort to start the race (with that 5 minute segment part of the 20 minutes) and also a best for an actual hour.

Iride01 

I don't put much value in max HR for anything. However it's likely not going to be the same for different activities. Running, road biking or even when on a trainer.

Also, you might not have enough energy left to get you to max HR on any one particular day or the other. Same if you wait too long on your ride to test it. At the end of a four hour ride, I'll never be able to get anywhere near my max hr.

Carbonfiberboy 

HR is slow to come up. For many years, I was able to see my highest HR for the year while sprinting at the end of a hard 2 hour climb. Your running max will be higher than your cycling max. The trainer doesn't count because of the HR effort necessary to get rid of the heat. For sure I wouldn't be able to see my MHR during a normal interval. I hit it today on the 3rd or 4th hard climb of the day. I knew it was max because I almost passed out. Backed it off and was OK. Also, MHR varies a lot. Depends on how rested one it, nutrition, arousal, all that stuff. That's the reason no one should set their HR zones off MHR.

ZHVelo

Your max HR while cycling is not the same as your max HR while running. Stop comparing the two.

adamrice 

This result doesn't seem surprising to me. The highest heart rate I've achieved in the past year has been on a long, steep hill, and I probably held it for only a few seconds. When I'm working out on my stationary trainer, I've gotten up to about 95% of that, but no higher, and it takes me at least 60 seconds at effort to hit that, even after I'm thoroughly warmed up.

Fatigue can lower your max HR. High temperatures will increase your HR at a given level of effort. And I'm sure there are other factors that come into play. So it can be hard to compare HR from one workout to the next if you're not controlling for these variables.

GhostRider62

I'm into my 60's and can hit 183 bpm and 18.4 METS on a treadmill. I can't touch those numbers on either an upright bike or a recumbent bike

On an upright, normal bike I can hit 175 bpm and around 365 watts for 5 minutes (VO2max proxy). I would TT in the low 160 HR BPM

On my very reclined recumbent bicycle, I have trouble exceeding 160 BPM and my best 5 minute power is 348 watts at 137 BPM, 20 minute power 322 watts at the same heart rate. If not fit, I have to push into the high 140's to make less power. Fitness increases stroke volume (of course)

burnthesheep

For 36 posts you've had some interesting ones so far already on BF. Nothing bad, just interesting.

This post along with the $1000 skinsuit sounds good enough to me that I'm going to say "I'm from Missouri.............show me".........as in........I'd like to see it.

I wouldn't quote running mets and bike VO2 figures in the same post unless you're intending to relate them. The mets you posted equates to a vo2max of elite for somebody in their 30's. Much less 60. It just gives a misleading picture. The equivalent met to vo2 max would put it at lower level domestic pro for the bike.

The posts could be legit, but the mixes of data points and vocabulary just make it sound a bit off and lack the details that leaves one satisfied versus just having swallowed the hook. Can't leave us hanging.

ZHVelo

60s, 348 watts over 5 minutes and 322 over 20 minutes?

Most people in their 20s cannot achieve that. How much do you weigh?

GhostRider62

Yes, many younger people are not fit.

My sports cardiologist's words, "I am astounded, absolutely astounded with 18.4 METS"

Covid got me some weight. I was quoting figures before then. Those were from a recumbent reclined at 18 degrees.

The point of my post was that high heart rates do not necessarily mean fitness. One can make good power at lower heart rate and older folks should not get too excited if they can no longer get it up to the 190's or something like when young. That's all. Just trying to give older fellas some hope

billridesbikes

If you can’t get your HR up while cycling it simply means you’re a better runner than cyclist.
The idea should be not to raise your HR for the sake of raising, but to increase your cycling ability.
The point I’m making is that cyclists develop cycling specific muscles that allow them to develop more
power than a runner-turned-triathlete on a bike.
Try riding more hills.

burnthesheep

You were nicer than I wanted to be. The HR listed for the 5 and 20 min bike is just incongruent either way with the run max. The actual watts doesn’t bother me.

The delta in HR is so much, it makes no sense. If it was 10 or 20 or even 30 bpm difference. Whatever. But from 183 to 137? I would accept a typo to 173.

Something smells funny.

Data like a nearly 60 bpm delta is only useful if it can be seen. As verbally, it makes zero sense. As there isn’t any context.

Something is off here.

ZHVelo

What does "not fit" mean? It suggests they could be if they wanted (i.e. trained). My point is, most humans will never achieve your numbers, even if they are at prime athletic age. So either you were a (semi-)pro, or you are talking out of your behind.

GhostRider62

Fitness is a combination of leanness and power specific to the type of riding you intend. Most humans do not achieve their potential for many reasons, it takes many, many years of dedicated training.

348 watts for 5 minutes is nothing. IIRC, it is corresponds to a FTP of 310-315. Good solid Cat 3 in the day. No racing anymore. Just to make sure I was not lying, I went into GoldenCheetah. It was 357 watts for 4:59 and 317 watts for 34:45. I can give you the phone number of my sports cardiologist if you want to talk to him. Most Pro 1/2 would be well over those figures. I recall reading A. Coggan saying that with years of dedicated training the average human could get to just about 4W/Kg or 300 watts.

Again. the point of my post was to say, low HR for an older person does not necessarily mean low power. If you wish to say my power was only 280 or 260 watts, fine. It was at 137 bpm and on a sub 20 minute 10 mile TT. I am going to do some sprint training today, have a good day.

burnthesheep

I know you responded to him, but given any combination of different endurance sports..........the delta in heartrate between the two doesn't match up. I don't care what the actual power numbers are. They could be a 3min mile run and 450w for 20min or a 15min mile run and 100w for 20min. Doesn't matter.

The fact that the delta in HR at that effort level is that much between two leg based endurance sports doesn't jive. I don't run much, but could do a run test to get some kind of pace and HR. Then do a bike test. The HR achieved isn't going to be 60 BPM different between the two. Shoot, I could try a swim or rowing........the HR for an equivalent test is going to wind up within a logical band.

I question the HR difference. As it's what's even relevant to the original topic, heart rate.

In terms of the power.......your original post for that said on your recumbent: "Those were from a recumbent reclined at 18 degrees.".

I know folks probably do own them, but I'd want to see the powermeter and crank setup for that. As the speed for flat land for that kind of power on a recumbent would need a pretty silly sized ring/pulley/cog setup to even use that much power. It takes a pretty silly sized ring on a TT bike to even use 350w, much less a recumbent.

It may be possible you're not making what you think you make on the recumbent if something is wonky with the power meter setup.........or God forbid this topic is relying on a discussion of HR and power using Strava estimated power..........which as to be comical for a recumbent given how they calculate power based on speed.

You didn't say on a regular bike or indoors on Zwift, you specifically said "Those were from a recumbent reclined at 18 degrees."

Next, lots of VO2max tests depend on you doing some level of work just under max for some meaningful period. So your 18.X mets would mean that isn't just you ran that for a few seconds off the couch. You would have had to do some meaningfully long duration of work at 15, 16, etc... as you reach 18.X mets. So, you'd have run at least a mile at 5min/mile or so for an entire mile. And be right at 6 or quicker likely longer. Since you quoted a high mets value, that tells me it wasn't a Bruce test where you don't actually go at max RPE at any point and it estimates it. As mets for that would be low, and the VO2max calculated from there.

Notice none of that says "no, you didn't do it". Just that the data collection method matters.

I mean, not much more to say about the 60bpm difference. That just belies good science on the topic. So there has to be an explanation somehow in the data or the procedure.

ZHVelo

Intervals.icu , which will only be used by people interested not only in cycling but stats and improving themselves, suggests that at my weight 348W/5 minute would be ca. 75th percentile. To call that nothing is a joke. That is better than 3 in 4 other humans. Humans already interested never mind all those not even interested. And you do that in your 60s.

GhostRider62

Again, to the OP.....don't worry about a low HR. It is possible to make good power at a relatively low HR.

I do not understand what you are asking or even why.

I run a 56 x 11 gear. I wish I could run more but my hub limits me to an 11 and I have a very special crankset where 56 is the limit. This is sufficient if there is no tailwind or zero slope. I hope that answers your crank question although I do not understand your point. You mention 350 watts. I never said that was my TT Power. The reason for giving 5 minute power was because it is often a proxy power. I thought that along with HR would be encouraging for the OP.

I probably should not have responded to the person who said something like my head is up my rear. HR and power should be linear over a broad range. Mine isn't due to issues that are beyond this thread. So, it means stupid programs like the Garmin that say my VO2max is 73 are totally wrong. Just plain wrong. Personally, I just use a hill that I always climb as my bench mark. That is the performance that matters to me. I do not know what a Bruce protocol is. I went until I was toast. It ramped up and went faster and faster. Max HR was 183. They were looking for a specific problem. I was ultrasounded at my max HR and had to hold my breath for 10 or 20 seconds.....that was torture. Worst thing imaginable.

The OP was concerned about not being able to get HR up sufficiently. I gave HR numbers for different positions merely to show that max HR can be impacted by the activity (running or treadmill) or upright or recumbent. My HR and power are lousy on my upright TT bike but are much better on one italian racer. Very different numbers. It is pretty normal to be able to achieve a higher HR running than cycling, for instance. That was the intent of my post. I am not sure what you mean by a 60 bpm difference. If I wrote something like that, it is in error. My max HR on a recumbent is very often lower than on an upright bike which is lower than running. About 20 BPM separates my bent max HR to running with upright in the middle. I hope that clarifies any confusion. It is really more related to perfusion/diffusion and pressure differentials at the lung and capillaries to the working muscles. There is plenty of science out there if you wish to research it. Body position also affects the oxygen uptake dynamics. Body position also greatly affects cooling, So, it is pretty complicated and your understanding is not quite there. It is very likely that the OP's protocol of 2 minutes simple does not give enough time for the slow component to kick in and therefore, he/she does not get to the HR desired. That is one possibility. But not much information was given

https://www.sportsperformancebulleti...and-go-faster/

GhostRider62

Andrew Coggan's famous chart showing power levels for various levels. Cat 3 is hardly earth shattering.

Many pros are making over 500 watts for 5 minutes. Surprisingly, if you review their power files, some of them are not having very high heart rates.

https://www.cyclinganalytics.com/blo...he-power-curve

terrymorse 

56 x 11:

That personal detail screams out for a photo of your legs.

burnthesheep

One word........recumbent. I would think a 56/11 would be pretty necessary with even a light tailwind on a recumbent. I wouldn't really expect super high cadences on a recumbent either. 56/11 at 80 rpm or so is 32mph. Nothing for a recumbent. I run a 60t and 12/25 on the normal diamond frame TT bike. And I'm far from very strong at all. You just gear it for the terrain/wind you encounter.

It's pretty clear given the posts above that even if the guy has demonstrated those values with the run and his recumbent.......he has no clue what he's talking about otherwise and is going on my block list. Nobody in the same post can say "it is pretty complicated and your understanding is not quite there." but then turn around and blindly post Coggan's old ftp chart. Years and years ago even Coggan himself stated he didn't feel anybody blindly re-posting that chart on the internet "gets it". Either on Slowtwitch or on the private Wattage chat group I'm pretty sure I've seen posts he made about that. So, anytime somebody blindly posts up Coggan's old ftp chart picture............be on the ready........ready for possible BS.

So, that's a big clue that we're probably the ones closer to having the understanding.

Then, it took several posts of prodding to get out that now the difference from the max run HR of 183 versus the recumbent 350w 5min at 137 bpm isn't right........somehow he now says the delta there is 20. Which is exactly what I said above is a value that would seem more reasonable. 10, 20, even 30. But not 60. Just for the record...........it is posted above 183bpm for that run, and that they did 350w for 5min on a recumbent at 137 bpm. 183-137 is 56bpm difference. NOT 20bpm. But for some reason we went from the 56bpm delta now to 20bpm.

I did a quick search and read on the user's other BF posts so far and it's just too much. Between this topic dragging out and the $1000 skinsuit humblebrag in the other topic.....and another one where he humbebrag drops some weird 200 mile 20,000ft climbing ride post.....I'm out. Done.

For the OP:
I recommend some Trainerroad podcasts. Guests with known good credentials covering these topics. It may take some digging, but I'm pretty sure they cover ftp and VO2 max testing along with plenty of heart rate stuff. Even if not a subscriber pretty sure you can listen to them. Better than listening to folks on Bikeforums at this point.

Maybe start with this search:
https://www.trainerroad.com/blog/?s=max+heart

razorjack

sure, I read a lot.
My question was basically, should I adjust my cycling HRm to 'max cycling hr' or to my max (from running or trainer, which is ~15-18bpm higher)
and then, when I do VO2max intervals, is it enough to be in 105-120% FTP, or should I be at >=90%HRm (and then, which max, from bike or my 'max max hr')

My FTP is about 3.8W/kg (273W), I'm 41y old, I didn't do any proper training before, so everything is quite new for me

burnthesheep

1. Use the power
2. Be wary of using the % ftp's depending on how you tested to arrive at that figure

I've never met somebody who can remotely do at 95% for an hour what they quoted as doing for 20min or from a ramp test. Tests should simply provide reliable input to setting your workout targets. Adjust a bit as necessary, either after workouts and taking notes or during a workout.

So, ftp is ftp when you've actually performed the work for the full time. Anything else is simply a number to get at the workout targets.

HR is probably only useful for like Z2 or tempo up to long steady threshold stuff. The short stuff like VO2 is just not super useful with HR. So go with the power.

Since you said that 273 was from a 20min test, and NOBODY that I've ever met can actually do 95% of their 20min test for a real deal hour..........use 92%. I got the 92% from some coaches that browse the Slowtwitch forums and they pop in little suggestions.

So, 273 x 92% x 115% is what I'd shoot for: 290w or so. Try that for a workout of 4x5min or two sets of 3x3min. After the first set(s), adjust up or down a couple watts based on how you feel about finishing up those sets. Better to cut power a hair and fail on the last set, than bail on half a workout.

guachi

Whenever I can do a 95+% of my FTP for an hour I assume my FTP is actually low. I just set a new best FTP of 303 Watts on May 16 and I'm fairly certain I can't actually do 303 Watts for an hour. 290? Sure. So I set my FTP to 92% of my 20 minute number and get 294. If I can consistently hit my higher numbers maybe I'll inch my FTP up but that 303 might be a "best case" scenario as my FTP previously was 283 set May 4. Previously it was 276 from an actual one hour bike ride set on March 19.