…not sure how to test on a road bike.
A power meter and a flat course are ideal. But a flat course at a (roughly) constant heart rate will give a good estimate. You can still calculate the drift based on the speed (if the course is flat and wind-free).
If you don’t want to test either on the bike, then I would assume that thresholds are 10-20 beats lower than in a weight-bearing test.
2) MHR – Max Heart Rate. Link to article: https://www.trainingpeaks.com/blog/why-you-should-target-your-aerobic-threshold-during-quarantine. It was on their email sent out May 9th.
Interesting. I agree with everything they say about aerobic threshold and training it. However, they say, “for most reasonably fit individuals, your AeT falls around 75-80% of maximum heart-rate.” What does “reasonably fit” mean? How does an athlete know if they qualify for that category and can use that intensity?
They also say, “[The AeT] power level is typically between 80-90% of Anaerobic Threshold power (FTP) depending on one’s level of aerobic fitness.” That’s not nearly broad enough. In the athletes that I train, I have athletes with severe ADS and an AeT of 70% AnT; and others that are highly trained with AeT over 95% of AnT. The generic prescription fails them all.
If you’ve been doing most of your training at AeT and are now adding some Z3, then it makes sense that you would feel good. The Z3 work is sharpening your base, and it will feel good for a while. I would keep it to less than 5% of total training time.
3) Well …. the article doesn’t make any mention of ADS but given training history of the case study I’m guessing they had ADS, and the paragraph below cut-and-pasted from the article implies a MHR based approach rather than a measured AeT one
….. Prior to working with me, the athlete did very little work below 80% max heart rate. Most of the work he did in this range was restricted to just warming up for the “main event.” We made a large shift in this training emphasis by adding a lot more easy aerobic work (~65-80% max heart rate) and a lot less high-intensity work (~85-100% max heart rate) …..
Don’t assume that an HR description is the equivalent of a prescription. For example, I often use MHR as a reference when I’m talking to someone with little training experience or if I don’t know their level of experience. It’s the quickest way to get a point across without rabbit-holing on what a threshold is, what types there are, what they mean, how they’re trained, etc.
As this thread demonstrates, changing the denominator to match the benchmark quickly makes the reference percentages confusing.
Now it may be that the persons AeT was around 80% of MHR (mine is around 70% of MHR albeit last test was 6 months ago – it may well be higher now) in which case there is a consistency, but for me it’s inconsistent.
The variation is huge, which is why I think personalization of training will always be the most effective. (For example, I’ve seen AeTs as low as 65% of MHR and as high as 90%.)
Another confusing factor is that if someone has little to no training history, then any activity will create an improvement.
Please don’t take any of the above as negative to UA.
Not at all. These conversations are important.
…I have learned over the years that there is no one protocol that’s perfect for everyone
Exactly. Which is why personalization has to happen and MHR prescriptions won’t be ideal.
…and right now I’m finding bringing in some 75-80% MHR is benefitting me greatly even if it’s above AeT.
Yes, that’s what Z3 does for a while. Just be careful to only do it for 6-8 weeks, and then go back to closing the gap between AnT and AeT. Once that gap is less than 10%, preferably closer to 5%, then that Z3 work will really work well.