Understanding my heart rate data

[david k]

i aimed to achieve a good distance - 40 miles is a good distance for me and a good average 16mph is good for me. I had little left in the tank so wondered if given that anything could be made of the said data

 

[Andrew_P]

Rather contradictory, I find one of the most lacking area's of Garmin Connect to be anything related to heart rate!

I find it useful for tracking the peaks and troughs, a part of my commute ride where I regularly get to roughly 85% of max I can then coast or gentle pedal down the other side for two minutes which gives me a rough guide to my HR recovery. By hovering over I can get the 1 minute and two minute HRR.

90% of my miles comes from doing my commute so I am not really in training for anything but I almost always am trying at 70-80% of my perceived best effort. The only interval training I do that gets me anywhere close to 100% perceived and or HR max is trying (and failing) to chase down someone who has nearly had me off my bike!

Hence why I find the graph interesting more than useful I suppose as my HR tracks with elevation, when I look back at early rides my HR didn't really fluctuate anywhere as near as much as it does now, in fact some of my early rides the HR looks more like it would while running/jogging a steady state.

 

[Garz]

i aimed to achieve a good distance - 40 miles is a good distance for me and a good average 16mph is good for me. I had little left in the tank so wondered if given that anything could be made of the said data

If your aiming to achieve distance then your HRM is not needed...

If you mean you want to analyse this information and apply fitness as 40 miles is your target distance then by only doing 40 mile rides your not going to see much improvement as you will plateau.

 

[david k]

If your aiming to achieve distance then your HRM is not needed...

If you mean you want to analyse this information and apply fitness as 40 miles is your target distance then by only doing 40 mile rides your not going to see much improvement as you will plateau.

would you expect to see a change in the 'zones' if i did the same distance in the same time but got fitter?

 

[Rob3rt]

The zones given, are labelled in an exceptionally poor way. Warm up? Fat burning? Aerobic? Anaerobic? Stupid!

You ought to look to a better source to define the zones in terms of Active Recovery, Endurance, Tempo, Threshold, VO2 Max, Anaerobic, Neuromuscular or a close approximation of such a structure. These are just words, substitute them for the words linked to your previous zones, it is more descriptive and will be in line with the terms used in relation to performance cycling.

At present, the zones either tell you whether you are aerobic or anaerobic, next to useless, the pain in your legs will tell you as much. It is almost impossible to describe a good distribution given your ambiguous aim of "acheive a good distance" based on such zones.

Looking at a better defined zone range, if you wanted to be going all day, you would want to spend as much time as possible in Z2 Endurance. On your labels, this probably equates to Fat Burning? Considering your distribution, you didn't spend a large proportion of your ride in this zone, you spent more in the "anaerobic" zone for one, so the conclusion is that you probably didn't cycle anywhere near as far as you are capable of.

Considering a slightly different scenario, if you wanted to cover the 40 mile as fast as possible, again your distribution could be improved, you would probably be looking at a high Z3/Tempo effort here, maybe with some ventures into Threshold territory.

A lot of the time spend in your lowest intensity zone suggests you ease off a lot when things get easy then struggle when things get tough (hence lots of time anaerobic), you should try to move the anaerobic and doing nothing %age into the tempo region. This will make for a more steady state effort. The easy bits will be harder, but sustainable, the hard bits will be easier (you will go a bit slower on these bits, but you will get it all and more back at other points), less time in the red = less damage done. Generally, you will go faster over a set distance if you maintain a steady, hard but maintainable effort rather than yo-yo'ing between blowing your arse out and then coasting or soft pedalling.

Real life and terrain dictates that the ideal scenario can will not be achieved, but you could get a lot closer to it than at present.

 

[Rob3rt]

would you expect to see a change in the 'zones' if i did the same distance in the same time but got fitter?

If you became fitter, you would capable of producing the same power, for a lower perceived exertion and your BPM per Watt would be lower, so if you were to maintain the same speed, for the same duration i.e. same power (assuming conditions are identical), you would do so with a lower HR, thus the zone distribution would be shifted (to the left if you plotted it using good practice, i.e. origin bottom left, assuming no negative numbers).

 

[Rob3rt]

If your aiming to achieve distance then your HRM is not needed...

If you mean you want to analyse this information and apply fitness as 40 miles is your target distance then by only doing 40 mile rides your not going to see much improvement as you will plateau.

A HR monitor is never needed, however, it can be useful with regards covering a new, increased distance.

I don't really understand what you mean in the second part.

 

[david k]

Thanks Robert, its a lot to take on board

it didnt seem like i was yo yo-ing but ill consider a more consistent effort on similar rides in the future

 

[Rob3rt]

IMO, it would probably be quite beneficial for someone to write a sticky on basic HR training, equipment, basic features, testing protocol's, setting up your zones and understanding them, basics of training to HR, recommended reading, FAQ's etc.

Problem being, it takes time and effort, requires a little bit of knowledge, is open to criticism and it is probably going to be a fairly thankless task so there is not much motivation for anyone to bother.

 

[david k]

IMO, it would probably be quite beneficial for someone to write a sticky on basic HR training, equipment, basic features, testing protocol's, setting up your zones and understanding them, basics of training to HR, recommended reading, FAQ's etc.

Problem being, it takes time and effort, requires a little bit of knowledge, is open to criticism and it is probably going to be a fairly thankless task so there is not much motivation for anyone to bother.

ha ha, very true

for me knowing if the stats back up how i felt is enough, i thought id worked harder than these stats suggest!

 

[Rob3rt]

ha ha, very true

for me knowing if the stats back up how i felt is enough, i thought id worked harder than these stats suggest!

That is related to the point I was making re. the distribution being rather polarized (a disproportionate amount of time spent either at very low or very high intensity zones). All that time accumulated in the anaerobic zone will have done damage, so even when working below that intensity, you may have had an elevated rate of perceived exertion.

 

[Garz]

I don't really understand what you mean in the second part.

Pretty simple really. If all you want to do is get better at riding 40 miles then he can continue working on that. Myself for example, when I got into road cycling moved up another mileage milestone i.e. could complete 40 miles then moved onto 50, then 75 then 100...

If all you want to do is improve on your fitness then there are many ways to achieve this.

 

[Garz]

That is related to the point I was making re. the distribution being rather polarized (a disproportionate amount of time spent either at very low or very high intensity zones). All that time accumulated in the anaerobic zone will have done damage, so even when working below that intensity, you may have had an elevated rate of perceived exertion.

Rob3rt, I don't really understand the Americanized spelling but each to their own.

 

[lukesdad]

A HR monitor is never needed, however, it can be useful with regards covering a new, increased distance.

I don't really understand what you mean in the second part.

The trouble with this statement is, you need a starting point. If you are not using heart rate as a starting point what are you using ?

 

[Rob3rt]

The trouble with this statement is, you need a starting point. If you are not using heart rate as a starting point what are you using ?

What?