HR testing

tunney

I have done this up a few times recently for people so might as well stick it here .....

If I was doing HR testing to work out zones this is what I would do.

I would do for bike and for run spaced apart by a few days. For some the zones are the same. For others very different. In my opinion the differences come about from usually lacking the mental strength, or the physical strength, to really hurt on the bike.

If testing on a turbo or threadmill make sure that there is a fan going as otherwise its a pretty useless test!

I would do the following set
10 easy
5x(30sec build, 30sec easy)
30 minute TT
5+ easy

The 30 minute TT should be done evenly paced. You are looking for the hardest you can push consistently over the 30 minutes.

Start a lap at the start of the 30 minute TT.
Ten minutes in hit lap again. 20 minutes later hit lap again.

Your average HR is an approximation of your sport specific threshold HR.

Recovery 0-68%
Endurance 69%-83%
Tempo 84% to 94%
Threshold 95% to 105%
Vo2max 105%+

In terms of retests. No real point. This isn't something that's going to change massively once you are trained.

interested

^^ nice post, and an interesting approach

Just of interest, apart from 400m tests and 20 min (max lengths in time given) - I don't know of a similar test for swimmers.
(the 400m test and 20 min tests are more barometers for form and the latter being a real test of fitness imho)

In truth, training zones back in my day came from threadmill based VO2/blood lactate testing. I think I only wore a HR monitor once or twice in the pool since it would cut and rarely stayed on so it was and still is a finger to neck, look at clock for 10 second and * 6.

Even after doing the tests, there were sessions where we wouldnt have the time to check the HR between intervals since they were designed to be high aerobic efforts - and only checking HR manually after the set was completed.
On bike and run, with gadgets its alot easier to see what the HR is at any time.

Anyhow - just a thought.

Oryx

interested wrote: »

look at clock for 10 second and * 6.

Totally off topic, but I see people work it out like this all the time, but look at clock for 6 second and * 10 is much, much easier.

mossym

Oryx wrote: »

Totally off topic, but I see people work it out like this all the time, but look at clock for 6 second and * 10 is much, much easier.

the longer time would give more accurate results though i would have thought? and if you're talking about a few % difference in zones then that accuracy would be important?

tunney

mossym wrote: »

the longer time would give more accurate results though i would have thought? and if you're talking about a few % difference in zones then that accuracy would be important?

Bar the recovery aspect.

i.e.

6 secs when those six seconds are immediately after stopping, and times 10
versus 30sec as the HR drops off over the 30 seconds

MD1983

mossym wrote: »

the longer time would give more accurate results though i would have thought? and if you're talking about a few % difference in zones then that accuracy would be important?

http://www.dcrainmaker.com/2011/07/finis-aquapulse-in-depth-review.html

never used something like this myself but the solution is available...!

may try one myself at some stage but most of the swim sessions i do are coached in a group and not focused on HR more just trying to keep up with the front

tunney

Also is HR a fantastic indicator in swimming.

In running and cycling typically higher HR == going harder == going faster

For triathletes (read **** swimmers)
higher HR could be the result of diminished form and resulting higher turnover without any additional propulsion.

interested

Agreed - but its often the only indicator to a coach about the effort employed by a swimmer to a particular set. The assumption being their stroke is at a certain level throughout the session.

Some sets are designed to have swimmers fail. As before - all HR and blood lactate related tests were done in a lab on a treadmill. Secondary, follow up tests were done poolside on sets of 400's where we attempted to maintain HR's in the zones and then blood samples given immediately (still in pool, jab in ear lobe, blood extracted as you'd a finger on your neck for the full 60')

Triathlete swimmers != swimmers ... nor should they.

Anyhow ...
Again, back on topic ... the approach to determining HR zones for bike and run .... the approach and session looked pretty sound to me .. but hey

tunney wrote: »

Also is HR a fantastic indicator in swimming.

In running and cycling typically higher HR == going harder == going faster

For triathletes (read **** swimmers)
higher HR could be the result of diminished form and resulting higher turnover without any additional propulsion.

mossym

interested wrote: »

. the approach to determining HR zones for bike and run .... the approach and session looked pretty sound to me .. but hey

i did this method on my bike using a turbo trainer and garmin HR monitor a few weeks back with a group (trying to move their training from cadence in a certain gear based to HR based). Warmed up, then did the 30 min effort taking the 10 minutes elapsed and final HR's and averaging. Gave me a threshold of 170.

couple of weeks later i;d booked in for a V02 max test, and with all the breathing equipment, power meter and everything else, the threshold came in at 172.

that's close enough for me to be convinced it's sound.

pgibbo

Do you think you would have hit 170 if you were doing the test at home on your own and not in a group environment?

Personally I think there a few extra watts/bpms to be gained in a group or a lab setting where most people will push a little bit more.

mossym

pgibbo wrote: »

Do you think you would have hit 170 if you were doing the test at home on your own and not in a group environment?

Personally I think there a few extra watts/bpms to be gained in a group or a lab setting where most people will push a little bit more.

few weeks before that i did the trainerroad 20 min ftp test. HR: 172. (i'm done with testing for a while..:) )

i'd agree with you though. the same effect i believe happens with something like trainerroad that graphs your effort, people put a bit more in to make sure the result looks good.

tunney

pgibbo wrote: »

Do you think you would have hit 170 if you were doing the test at home on your own and not in a group environment?

Personally I think there a few extra watts/bpms to be gained in a group or a lab setting where most people will push a little bit more.

I thought you had learnt to hurt yourself?
I'm sure you'll work on this.

pgibbo

tunney wrote: »

I thought you had learnt to hurt yourself?
I'm sure you'll work on this.

Like everything, it's a habit and one that is lost quickly - a bit like fitness can be. Working on it!!