Forum menu
I was out today with the intention of riding between 60-70% of my max HR and have a question you can maybe help me with. Since buying a Garmin and doing some reading around HR zones. I've been practicing riding within set HR parameters but have also been doing some rides based on cadence. What I've noticed is when trying to keep my HR in the 'endurance zone' my cadence is often the 70's low 80's and I end up with a slower average speed. Should I be concerned about this as it's technically a HR focused ride?
No. If you are doing a ride based on HR then you accept whatever speed you ride at. It is quite awkward to manage both HR and cadence since a high cadence exercises the heart more.
What are you trying to achieve with a cadence of 70-80 anyway?
How did you measure your max HR anyway? Its very difficult and very unpleasant to measure your max HR accurately. 60-70% max HR is the endurance zone but if this is slower than you normally ride for a couple of hours or so then what you think is your max isn't really your max and its too low. Much better to determine your aerobic threshold HR and set your training zones from that. Easier and less horrible to test. Just ride as hard as you can for 20 mins and whatever your average HR was for the second 10 mins is your threshold HR.
If you want a higher cadence then change down a gear or two.
I don't think the OP intends to ride at 70-80 just that to keep his HR in the required range that's what he's riding at.
Just ride as hard as you can for [s]20[/s]30 mins and whatever your average HR was for the [s]second[/s] last [s]10[/s] 20 mins is your threshold HR.
Thanks for the correction. This is what I was thinking of but got the times wrong
Happy that my FTHR is pretty accurate (Short of going to sports science lab). [b]whitestone[/b] has it, on the few rides I've measured so far I'm riding with less effort in order to keep my HR in the zone 2 parameters and this has a knock on effect on cadence and speed.So I was wondering whether this was normal?
Well its completely logical if you are riding with less effort that you go slower ( 💡 ?)
And cadence is determined by what gear you use for a given speed - if you want a higher cadence, pick an easier gear.
Kinda feel as though i'm missing something here.......
In the cadence thread I mentioned a Strava segment where on successive days I approached it in completely different ways. The segment is a long (4.9Km) gradual climb with the steepest part at the bottom, it's only a couple of hundred metres long, before it gets easier and easier.
Day one I stuck in the big ring for the whole segment, the "steep" bit isn't particularly steep really. Day two I was in the small ring all the way. These were my results:
In big ring:
Time: 12:19
Avg cadence: 74
Avg HR: 163
In small ring:
Time: 13:21
Avg cadence: 92
Avg HR: 148
The effort when in the small ring actually felt harder even though the data shows otherwise. The next time I do it I'll use a sensible gearing strategy, shifting to the big ring when that's required.
148bpm is in the middle to upper third of my Tempo heart range whereas 163 is near the top of my Threshold range.
If I ride my SS mtb on the road, I cannot get my HR out of Endurance. That's the point - it's useful for recovery.
Power is force x velocity (of the pedal), so a big force and mashing or a smaller force and spinning. The very low gear on my SS means that the force will be so small that cadence limitations will prevent power from being too high. And HR is related to power, not cadence.
On a 13 minute segment nothing matters except sustaining maximum power.
You dont have a power meter so HR is the best proxy.
You should looking 90% plus of your max HR.