4 Comments

1. 

   Chuck Cali on December 30, 2010 at 11:12 am

   John,

   I thought you would wait until the new year to start hammering away at this subject again.

   Top Gun was and still is one of my favorite movies. (I’m partial to airplanes as you know)

   Nothing WILL change until there is something to change to. The question for me; What comes first, change the language or the industry paradigm? Maybe changing the language will change the paradigm but I believe it is more fundamental than that. The consumer must demand it first. How is the consumer going to know it even exists? Us.

   So long as the primary choice out there is mindless exercise set to music, changing the language will hardly make a dent. Why? These classes historically have been taught in the upper performance zones zooming through the lower zones during warm up. That is what the majority of the indoor cycling public expects/wants. Therefore, heart zones language is not needed in such classes.

   Indeed the challenge facing Indoor Cycling 2.0 is tantamount to the Titanic changing the course of the iceberg. Not a trivial task to be sure.

   There is movement toward more training less entertainment. Certainly the programs at Lifetime fitness seem to have gone in such a direction. The Cycling Fusion Road Map is a tremendous example of where Indoor Cycling 2.0 can go.

   Like everything else in business… if the consumer is demanding it someone will supply it.

   Boutique studios are supporting what demand there is but, most struggle. Those that have survived have done so because they offer the kind of experience not found in the big boxes. Small class size, better training. However these boutiques studios make up a very small segment of this industry and are clearly set apart by the pay per class business model.

   My most recent experience is similar. I’ve got good traction on a Heart Rate Based program at a local corporate fitness facility. If everything goes as planned we kick off in February which is ‘Heart Healthy Month’. When I offered the same to the big box where I also teach I got a categorical, no. It is what it is and ICI is doing its best – along with others – to change such behavior.

   Is it time for the big boxes to adopt a pay per class model for such special training? Absolutely. But who is educating the big boxes? Again, us.

   Where am I on this chart? First, reading it should scare/confuse one. Ironically, given this chart is based on MAX heart rate that changes with age (I can already hear Jennifer) and if I’m reading it correctly, (reading it correctly is not a given) it happens to put my max on the low side of my measured max by roughly five to ten bpm depending on how I read the chart.

   Still, does this chart does belong on an elliptical? Yes, its purpose is not education but to limit liability and validate heart rate numbers should the exerciser chose to look at them at all.

   That should get things going.

   Happy New Year

   Chuck

2. 

   Jennifer Sage on January 1, 2011 at 6:03 pm

   This sign is the reason the fitness industry is a mess. I think this is perfect proof that we need a standard way to describe intensities – but not “zones”. So this also proves that John and I are essentially arguing the same thing (sort of)! 😉

   Understanding Perceived Exertion is really the answer…and it’s really not too difficult to understand with a little guidance.

   This is a ridiculous sign. And as Chuck said, it’s to cover their behinds for liability reasons. But scaring people to thinking that efforts above 85%MHR is dangerous?? You would never have athletes then.

3. 

   Janet Morrison on January 3, 2011 at 11:29 am

   Jennifer, is it the language of “zones” in general that you disapprove of or this stereotypical oversimplification of “zones” that’s so commonplace in so many clubs. To be clearer in my question, do you “like” the LifeTime Fitness chart in part II of this topic? It uses the color and language of “zones 1-5” but is more descriptive of intensities, and for me, most importantly, uses AT or LT as the anchor. Thanks.

4. 

   Jennifer Sage on January 3, 2011 at 3:18 pm

   Hi Janet,
   the language of the zones is the best part and is what links them together I believe. By using similar language to describe the physiological responses to various effort levels, different “zone” methodologies can co-exist. The language (perceived exertion) is what I think we need to focus on, not a black and white “zone” methodology as one standard. In actual fact, we really are arguing the same thing – because the standard we both want is to use threshold. Simple isn’t a bad thing, it’s just when it’s “oversimplified” using MHR that makes it even more confusing.

   I think Lifetime has done a fabulous job with their HR training and usage of AT/LT as the anchor for creating a meaningful way to think about training zones. That is Job #1.

   They in fact suggest 3 different ways to arrive at that threshold, the Bronze, Silver and Gold methods, which I think is a great way to give options. It also shows you that you don’t have to have ONLY one way to describe something, which is exactly my point with not setting ONE standard for HR Zones. The easiest, and perhaps less effective method is what they call Bronze – using a formula to derive AT. For those just starting out it at least gets them into the ballpark.

   The next best level is to use RPE. This is a very effective way to determine AT/LT, and is how I do it in my graded field test (video being posted very soon). This gets you much closer to a personalized anchor around which you can base your training. not accurate enough for an athlete or more advanced indoor cyclist, but “good enough”.

   Their “gold standard” is metabolic testing – and even that would be argued by many ex physiologists, because there is the possibility for so much tester error. The New Leaf program is not always accurate – it takes some real solid knowledge of exercise science to use the software properly to come up with a correct AT. A tester with limited knowledge (from my experience, most of those who I’ve encountered) will just accept the default AT that the computer arrives at, instead of using the 4 variable checklist that New Leaf software has, which allows you to manually manipulate the results. So is metabolic the gold standard? Well, it’s getting closer, but the true gold standard for LT testing is a Lactate Threshold test, requiring a blood measurement during a graded test. The gas exchange method (VCO2/VO2) is an estimation of LT.

   What Lifetime has done better than perhaps any chain in the country is to market this program and get more people to take the metabolic tests. In the process they also have taught more people about heart rate training and have motivated them to use HR monitors. Bravo! That is the standard we need.

   Now, as for the ZONES, I don’t personally like using the Lifetime zones where AT is at the top of Zone 3 (with 2 zones above), because I fall into the camp, much like many cycling and triathlete coaches, who acknowledge that HR above threshold is not applicable. In other words, you can’t give a prescription for it – but you can see where it goes based on PE and then after the fact, SEE what HR you arrived at for that particular effort. This is because HR does not respond fast enough to efforts above threshold – it can take as long as a minute to stabilize. This is why I prefer threshold to be at the top of Zone 4, with only one real zone above it. (I’ve wrote a post sometime last spring where I wrote about how to use duration and perceived exertion of the desired interval to coach riders in efforts above threshold, instead of basing it on HR. I’ll have to hunt it down and provide a link to it. It’s also described in my eBook Keep it Real).

   Are the Lifetime zones wrong? Absolutely not! If it gets people to wear HRMs, and understand where their threshold is, and know that below it they are burning more fat and improving their aerobic development, and that working right at their threshold is doing a lot of great things on a physiological level, and that working above it in intervals improves other aspects of their fitness…THAT (IMO) is all that matters.

   Just like there isn’t just one way to determine threshold, there isn’t one way to set zones around it. And in determining that threshold, just like there is a ballpark way to estimate it (which is still light years ahead of MHR) on up to very accurate ways to determine it, there are various methods of setting zones around it. These range from “ballpark” (easy, moderate, hard) to much more fine tuned zones (some coaches have 5-6 zones BELOW threshold to nuance the training even more). As a person grows in his or her commitment to training, they would then move towards a much more finely tuned way to define zones. 5 zones may be too confusing for a beginner, but 3 zones is too simplified for someone more committed to training (and I’m not talking athletes necessarily).

   The #1 standard that we need to push for is using threshold as an anchor. I believe everything will fall into place after that.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.