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.
That would be your FTP looking back at you… catch him if you can.
Now that I'm an official Stages Indoor Cycling Master Educator, I figured I needed to create an Audio Profile so you can hear how I teach one of my Power classes. My profile is “Racing Your FTP”.
The goal is very simple; beat your FTP or “Threshold Check” numbers on every set. The ride will consist of two warm up songs, a “Threshold Check”, and three efforts of around 12, 18 and 9 minutes with a 1 minute recoveries after each interval.
I love mixing my class music and I've provide you with the MP3 below. I have also included an actual recording of me coaching this complete class. I suggest riding to this class by yourself, to experience exactly how I present this profile and you'll have a better idea of where & what I'm cuing during the class.
[wlm_private ‘PRO-Platinum|PRO-Monthly|PRO-Gratis|PRO-Seasonal|Platinum-trial|Monthly-trial|PRO-Military|30-Days-of-PRO|90 Day PRO|Stages-Instructor|Schwinn-Instructor|Instructor-Bonus|28 Day Challenge']
Enjoy and please let me know how it works for you as a comment below.
Do you look up at a room full of smiling, fit, self-directed, endurance athletes?
Or does your class more closely resemble the population where you live?
In Part 1 I shared survey results that showed that a 20 Minute Threshold Field Test isn't realistic (maybe practical would be a better word) for where most of us we teach – which is primarily large health clubs.
I also stated that;
It’s well documented that a 20 minute Threshold Field Test is effective in determining an Athlete’s T2 (Anaerobic/Lactate Threshold) or FTP (Functional Threshold Power).
Are we training real Athletes in our classes?
I now see that asking an additional question on the HR training survey regarding class makeup would have been helpful in getting a true understanding of class makeup. So please permit me to make this assumption based on personal experience of 15 years teaching (and attending classes) at small studios, large “Big Box” clubs and conversations with hundreds of Instructors; the majority of our students are what could be described as “Club Athletes” who attend class or workout 2-4 times a week. My observation is that a very small percentage <15% are true endurance athletes. Of course every class or club is different. Class format and the time of year has a large bearing on class composition. For example my 90 minute endurance classes in the winter are > 70% endurance athletes… but then that class is designed specifically for them.
The purpose of a 20 minute field test is to determine an accurate Threshold HR for the purpose of setting HR training zones. These HR zones will be used to structure training intensities for weeks or months in the future.
In an early post I talked about using your Heart Rate Monitor as a GPS instead of a Speedometer. I was trying to reinforce something that you already know; maintaining an effort at, or very close to, Threshold for any length of time is painful and difficult for anyone. Like you, Amy and I fall somewhere in that upper 15%. If we choose to, we could ride at a consistent RPE that we feel is our threshold for 20 minutes, for the purpose of determining our Threshold HR and be pretty close.
But what about the other 85% of the students in our classes? How many could maintain a true Threshold RPE over a 20 minute Threshold Field Test?
What happens to the accuracy of the test if your students are finding, over the course of the 20 minute test, a HR average that's somewhere in the middle of T1 & T2?
Fast forward a week, post field test.
All right class, You tell them, I want everyone to build their intensity to Threshold and we will keep it there for 4 minutes. Those students who made it to your Field Test last week are watching the numbers climb on their monitors to their newly determined Threshold HR. Except they find after a few minutes, they aren't really feeling the Threshold signals you are describing. Do they:
A. Ignore the physical clues (RPE) and go with the HR number you told them was their tested Threshold HR?
or
B. Ignore the Field Tested HR and instead push harder till they are feeling the physical Threshold clues you described?
As I see it:
Option A. Has them under training = missing out on potential fitness improvements.
and
Option B. Causes confusion and has some questioning why they took the test to begin with.
