The computer industry has an acronym: G.I.G.O which stands for:
GARBAGE IN = GARBAGE OUT
It refers to the idea that if your input data/information is inaccurate (GARBAGE IN), then any computations, using that inaccurate data/information can't be anything other than GARBAGE OUT.
Over the years I've come to believe that you should carefully consider G.I.G.O as it could apply to the Heart Rate & Power training you offer in your classes.
Spinning® Master Instructor Danielle Foster alerted me to this article: Three Reasons To Rethink Heart-Rate Training from running.competitor.com. While they don't identify G.I.G.O by name as the cause of their concerns, a quick read through their list shows, and I'm confident you'll agree, that's the case…
1. Fluctuations Do Not Correspond To Effort Levels
Perhaps the biggest limitation to heart-rate training is that many changes in your heart rate do not correlate to your fitness level. Sleep, stress, and dehydration can all raise or lower heart rate on any given day. As normal people with jobs, families, and otherwise busy lives, these outside influencers are common and can have a drastic affect on your heart rate readings.
“Sleep, stress, and dehydration can all raise or lower heart rate on any given day.” I don't know about you, but if I don't get enough sleep I can feel like >>> GARBAGE. So anything my HR Monitor or Power Meter shows me will be potentially inaccurate. Same goes for; stress, hydration levels, illness, training frequency / amount and also if you're in the doghouse… because you forgot your wedding anniversary.
2. Lack Of Concrete Data Needed To Establish Training Zones
Another inherent drawback to heart-rate training is how difficult it is to establish your max heart rate and the accurate training zones that result from that figure. While a quick Google search reveals a myriad of formulas to help you find your max heart rate, the problem with formulas is that they are based on an average. What if you’re not average? Not only that, but is maximum heart rate really the best predictor of training zones?
Sally Edwards says using shoe size would be as accurate a predictor of maximum heart rate as any age predicted formulas. So what should you use to determine your training zones? If you're really serious, I'd take a graded exercise metabolic assessment. Yes they're expensive and you might have to travel a ways to find a provider.
What about a the 20 minute threshold field tests other's promote? They may work for the true endurance athletes in your classes. It's only after hours and hours of training that most have the fitness, and have learned to tolerate (and enjoy) the pain, that is working at threshold continuously for 20 minutes. Without either, your riders are probably not really finding their actual threshold HR or watts = G.I.G.O. Any zones they build from GARBAGE will be… GARBAGE.
Were always adding new members, so in case you missed (or haven't found) my series of posts from 2011. They describe why I don't feel long threshold field tests get the results we intend.
Long climbs of modest grades are the ideal terrain for Muscular Endurance
Before we get to the fun of actually conducting our experiments (from a nearby but unknown location comes the sound… “Moo hoo hoo ha ha ha” said with a deep and ominous voice) — sorry about that — when we get close to actually conducting our experiments… well, you know — my lab assistants gets very excited. As I was saying, before we conduct our experiments, we must define the specific method of testing or measuring what we are studying.
To do this, we must think like a researcher. A good researcher wants a good definition of what we are studying, how we will study it, and specifically how we will know if there is a change as a result of our study’s inputs. Consequently, we need a way of “baselining” our subjects such that the way we measured their baseline can be easily repeated later to see if our hypothesis was valid or invalid.
Identify or Create the Drill That Reflects the Research Topic
To create a drill or performance test that can be conducted to reflect our research topic (in this case Muscular Endurance) I like to start with the science perspective — university, medical community, etc. I like to read the journals that the professional researchers read to get a solid foundation — to help me think the way they think. The first place I started was a position statement by the ACSM:
“Muscular strength and endurance are developed by the progressive overload principle, i.e., by increasing more than normal the resistance to movement or frequency and duration of activity. Muscular strength is best developed by using heavier weights (that require maximum or near maximum tension development) with few repetitions, and muscular endurance is best developed by using lighter weights with a greater number of repetitions (1).”
So first we have some confirmation of our approach in their statement that Muscular Endurance is best developed with lighter weights and higher repetitions (translating into a lower Heart Zones and a higher cadence). This answers the question of HOW we will execute the training, but we still need to know how they chose to measure Muscular Endurance.
Create the Performance Test To Measure Before & After
From the same study referenced above, we read this (paraphrased):
“At 0, 10, and 14 weeks, subjects performed maximal repetition tests; designed such that a similar number of repetitions were performed during each set, the second set to failure. “
While this is pretty easy to accomplish with weights and repetitions in a set, it takes a little bit of “translation” to apply this to cycling. As such, we will need to use heart rate and power as our gauges and metrics as we push our test subjects to “failure”. In our current study, failure will be defined by the point the rider goes above Zone 3 in Heart Rate and/or what power level they are not able to maintain for a full 10 minute stage.
For Example:
Subject A does a baseline test (the test at 0 weeks) where he holds cadence steady at 85 RPM, a heart rate in the middle of Zone 3, and power at 150 Watts for 10 min. We then increase his Power to 175 Watts, and he is told to keep his cadence and HR nearly the same. He does this by increasing his gear or resistance. He handles this without a problem, despite a slight increase in HR (but not over zone 4). We then increase his power in a similar fashion to 200Watts, and within the 4th minute he exceeds Zone 3 and thus reaches failure within our definition of Muscular Endurance.
Upon retesting at say week 8 or 10, he does the exact same test but this time he is able to go to 225 Watts before he reaches failure. Without getting into the concept of “statistical significance”, let’s just say that we could deduce that the training used had the effect of improving his Muscular Endurance.
Make It Fun:
The good thing about not being paid to do this research, and not being part of a university lab, is that we can actually have some fun doing this research. I always like to integrate Performance Tests into our training or even our Indoor Classes. In my next post, I will discuss just how you can do that and what other aspects need to be controlled as well.
In my last article entitle “Make Recovery Work” we looked at how we as instructors can efficiently use recovery time to our advantage. Two of the main points were to use recovery as a time to provide instruction to prepare our riders for what is ahead and as a way to administer the “Recovery Litmus Test”. The biggest question that was prompted by the article was “so how long should recovery be?”.
An Excellent Question!
Not only and excellent question, but the right question. The subject of recovery ranks high on my “ticked off” list as an area needing much education and improvement. This is not just an indoor cycling issue, it is a dilemma I’ve seen in training as a whole. We live in a world of the 1-hour training block. To take it a step further, we are constantly asking (or being asked) “HOW MUCH can we jam into 60 minutes”. Well, as usual……it depends.
You Can’t Fake Reality
Many of us have experienced those indoor cycling classes where the instructor yells “GO!” within the first 2 minutes of the start of class and continues to pour on the intensity until the hour is up. Recovery….eh….stretching….eh…..wipe down the bike time is also reduced to barely 2 minutes. The goal is to “maximize” our class and our workout — squeeze the hour for what it’s worth. What an absolute waste of a class AND a bad sales practice (what?).
Instructors and riders alike often think that if you push hard through the entire class you will gain more fitness and lose more weight (the sales pitch). Because many have bought into this misconception, insane indoor cycling classes are still the rage (pun intended). Enter REALITY! The (physiological) reality is that most riders are not going to be able to hold 80-90% for an entire hour. One to 3 minutes is more like it. And then what happens? Their intensity decreases and decreases as their muscles continue to fatigue while their mental toughness dwindles. After 10 minutes of this insanity (being ridiculously generous), riders are reduced to 70% of their ability. The real fake out here is that the rider “perceives” that they are still working at 90+%. This is where having a power meter on your bike can sprinkle a does of the real world.
Top Performance Requires Adequate Recovery
Top performance is not just for the pros. It simply means to work at the best level of intensity for the given drill or effort. For example, if an interval requires that we maintain 80% of our ability for 5 minutes, maintaining only 70% will not provide the needed stress and will not yield the desired benefit. The sad part is, without recovery, our riders will never know they are getting gypped out of fitness. To them it stills feels like (is perceived as) a hard 80% effort.
Due to the time constraints (and lack of attention span of some riders), providing the same amount of recovery indoors, as we would when riding outdoors, may be unrealistic. But that doesn’t mean we throw out the baby with the bath water. For example, it may be ideal to provide 5 minutes of recovery after a hard 2 minute interval. In an indoor class, recovering for that long may cause riders to mentally tune out. Remember, we are trying to adhere to the best practices of exercise science, but not everyone in our classes are elite level athletes. So what do we provide? Considering the indoor environment and our demographic, 3 minutes to recovery can work. Let me provide some guidelines that may allow you to make better decisions. Keep in mind these are just “guidelines” and there are numerous variables.
I’ll break these down by using the common cycling zones 1 to 5:
ZONE 1 — ACTIVE RECOVERY (RPE 1-2 or Easy):
This IS recovery so one should not need to recover from recovery 🙂
ZONE 2 — ENDURANCE (RPE 3-4 or Fairly Light):
Endurance efforts can generally be held for longer times (1 hour +). In many cases, providing 1-2 minutes of recovery after an 8-20 minute steady-state endurance effort may provide more “mental” recovery than physical.
ZONE 3 — AEROBIC FITNESS (RPE 5-6 or Moderate):
Although aerobic fitness efforts can be sustained for 6 — 10 minutes by some, they can be considered very challenging for beginner and intermediate level riders. Depending on your class demographic, I would provide 1 — 2+ minutes of recovery depending on the length of the effort. If the duration of the effort is less than 3 minutes, 1 minute of recovery may be suitable.
ZONE 4 — SUB-THRESHOLD (RPE 7-8 or Hard):
Even though some fit outdoor riders can sustain this level of intensity for much longer, indoors these efforts are generally from 4 to 6 minutes in length and could require 2 — 4+ minutes of recovery respectively.
ZONE 5 — CAPACITY (RPE 9-10 or Extremely Hard):
These efforts can range from 30-second explosive sprints to 2+ minute anaerobic endurance efforts. If a rider is “truly” working at capacity, 3-5+ minutes of recovery should be well received.
Like most things that involve both the human body and science, there are many variables and options. One of them is Tabata training. In general, Tabata training provides a shortening (starving) of recovery between high intensity efforts to increase aerobic fitness and stamina. This type of training is best maximized by those with a higher level of fitness and should be “seasoned” into our training and not BE our training. And DON”T use Tabata training as an excuse to provide inadequate recovery in all of your classes. I WILL find you.
So as you can tell by my emotional state while writing this article, I’ve got issues surrounding this topic. Over the last 15+ years of coaching, I’ve seen numerous riders put at risk from over-reaching and over-training, as well as, a general loss of fitness. The biggest shame is that people don’t get to the fitness level they could achieve because they are working to hard to much of the time.
Give your riders Quality Training! Give your class the Real Thing!
What exactly should the “openers” in the warm-up consist of? In Tom's “Getting Started with Intervals” audio profile, he described them as 30 seconds of maximum effort followed by 30 seconds of recovery, which to me sounds the same as the first Muscular Strength interval in this audio profile (30s effort/30s recovery). I would appreciate help understanding the difference.
As always, I greatly appreciate the audio profiles!!! And Marc, thank you for the playlist suggestions!
Kristi
Kristi,
Thanks for you question. It is a good one. Many people don't understand the purpose of openers and thus never do them or benefit from them. Simply, they are all-out, maximum efforts for the prescribed period of time (openers can be different lengths depending on their purpose and what one is preparing for). How do we define the “all-out” maximum effort? Think of it as the most resistance you can use at the highest cadence. I would recommend a cadence of 85 RPM or greater (I personally prefer 100+ RPM). You should find yourself through into the high-end of Zone 5!
So what's the difference between the openers and muscular strength efforts? The muscular strength efforts are limited by the cadence. In order to more effectively develop strength in the legs, the cadence needs to be slower (60-70 RPM) in order to provide the necessary stress (I.e. Force) on the muscle. This in many cases will not produce the highest heart rates (but pretty high). Simply put, what is the most resistance/stress/force I can place on my legs at for example, 60 RPM.
Openers push every limit for a short period of time in an attempt to activate systems such as your anaerobic energy pathway and lactate buffering. If you prepare and active these systems BEFORE the structured part of the workout, the body will not be behind the 8-ball and will respond more consistently and repeatedly.
Long climbs of modest grades are the ideal terrain for Muscular Endurance
