Hi,

Black Friday brought me a sports watch and a heavy cold, staying in bed
for a few days, and forcing me to sleep more than 10 hours per night
until after christmas.

The new sports watch told me I am far too fit for my age (VO2 Max at 47
on the first walk after several weeks of weakness and 50 by now).

So I had to try out that watch feature of a "HRM-driving training plan",
picking the longest posiible plan 30 weeks with three trainings a week.

The first training said "90 minute cycle ride aerobic zone 2" which made
me learn that there are lost of differences between the names of heart
rate zones afterwards (the watch counts warm-up as zone 1, so zone 2
should have been just below 120).
I went 90 minutes "normal commuting" speed which my watch counts as zone
3 and then had to get home another just over 10km.
https://www.strava.com/activities/6466423490

Next problem is that Strava and Garmin seem to have quite different
ideas on which zones start and end where:
At age 50, I have a resting heart rate of 45 and I'm supposed to have a
max HR of 170 by age.
Strava seems to place the "edge" to anaerobic at 148 while Garmin places
it at 138 (I guess for a Garmin training plan I need to stick to Garmin
terminology).
Anyway, while I can sustain efforts around 135 easile for an hour or
more, a sprint bringing me to the 140-145 range exhasuts my legs after
three minutes, making 5-minute intervals in those areas a meaningful
excercise.

Do you lot have any feedback on this?

Rolf

On Saturday, January 8, 2022 at 6:34:33 PM UTC+1, Rolf Mantel wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Black Friday brought me a sports watch and a heavy cold, staying in bed
> for a few days, and forcing me to sleep more than 10 hours per night
> until after christmas.
>
> The new sports watch told me I am far too fit for my age (VO2 Max at 47
> on the first walk after several weeks of weakness and 50 by now).
>
> So I had to try out that watch feature of a "HRM-driving training plan",
> picking the longest posiible plan 30 weeks with three trainings a week.
>
> The first training said "90 minute cycle ride aerobic zone 2" which made
> me learn that there are lost of differences between the names of heart
> rate zones afterwards (the watch counts warm-up as zone 1, so zone 2
> should have been just below 120).
> I went 90 minutes "normal commuting" speed which my watch counts as zone
> 3 and then had to get home another just over 10km.
> https://www.strava.com/activities/6466423490
>
> Next problem is that Strava and Garmin seem to have quite different
> ideas on which zones start and end where:
> At age 50, I have a resting heart rate of 45 and I'm supposed to have a
> max HR of 170 by age.
> Strava seems to place the "edge" to anaerobic at 148 while Garmin places
> it at 138 (I guess for a Garmin training plan I need to stick to Garmin
> terminology).
> Anyway, while I can sustain efforts around 135 easile for an hour or
> more, a sprint bringing me to the 140-145 range exhasuts my legs after
> three minutes, making 5-minute intervals in those areas a meaningful
> excercise.
>
> Do you lot have any feedback on this?
>
> Rolf

The first thing you have to do is define your own hr or power zones. The default Garmin zones make no sense to me. An easy ride for me is at a heartrate of 120 bpm for instance. For me it is almost impossible to ride at a heartrate lower than 100 bpm.

Lou

On Saturday, January 8, 2022 at 11:17:39 AM UTC-8, Lou Holtman wrote:
> On Saturday, January 8, 2022 at 6:34:33 PM UTC+1, Rolf Mantel wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Black Friday brought me a sports watch and a heavy cold, staying in bed
> > for a few days, and forcing me to sleep more than 10 hours per night
> > until after christmas.
> >
> > The new sports watch told me I am far too fit for my age (VO2 Max at 47
> > on the first walk after several weeks of weakness and 50 by now).
> >
> > So I had to try out that watch feature of a "HRM-driving training plan",
> > picking the longest posiible plan 30 weeks with three trainings a week.
> >
> > The first training said "90 minute cycle ride aerobic zone 2" which made
> > me learn that there are lost of differences between the names of heart
> > rate zones afterwards (the watch counts warm-up as zone 1, so zone 2
> > should have been just below 120).
> > I went 90 minutes "normal commuting" speed which my watch counts as zone
> > 3 and then had to get home another just over 10km.
> > https://www.strava.com/activities/6466423490
> >
> > Next problem is that Strava and Garmin seem to have quite different
> > ideas on which zones start and end where:
> > At age 50, I have a resting heart rate of 45 and I'm supposed to have a
> > max HR of 170 by age.
> > Strava seems to place the "edge" to anaerobic at 148 while Garmin places
> > it at 138 (I guess for a Garmin training plan I need to stick to Garmin
> > terminology).
> > Anyway, while I can sustain efforts around 135 easile for an hour or
> > more, a sprint bringing me to the 140-145 range exhasuts my legs after
> > three minutes, making 5-minute intervals in those areas a meaningful
> > excercise.
> >
> > Do you lot have any feedback on this?
> >
> > Rolf
> The first thing you have to do is define your own hr or power zones. The default Garmin zones make no sense to me. An easy ride for me is at a heartrate of 120 bpm for instance. For me it is almost impossible to ride at a heartrate lower than 100 bpm.

I'll have to get everything set up again and matched and wear my heart rate monitor on a ride again. But my damaged lungs makes my oxygen uptake so bad that I cannot maintain a lot of power for any period of time.

On Saturday, January 8, 2022 at 12:34:33 PM UTC-5, Rolf Mantel wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Black Friday brought me a sports watch and a heavy cold, staying in bed
> for a few days, and forcing me to sleep more than 10 hours per night
> until after christmas.
>
> The new sports watch told me I am far too fit for my age (VO2 Max at 47
> on the first walk after several weeks of weakness and 50 by now).
>
> So I had to try out that watch feature of a "HRM-driving training plan",
> picking the longest posiible plan 30 weeks with three trainings a week.
>
> The first training said "90 minute cycle ride aerobic zone 2" which made
> me learn that there are lost of differences between the names of heart
> rate zones afterwards (the watch counts warm-up as zone 1, so zone 2
> should have been just below 120).
> I went 90 minutes "normal commuting" speed which my watch counts as zone
> 3 and then had to get home another just over 10km.
> https://www.strava.com/activities/6466423490
>
> Next problem is that Strava and Garmin seem to have quite different
> ideas on which zones start and end where:
> At age 50, I have a resting heart rate of 45 and I'm supposed to have a
> max HR of 170 by age.
> Strava seems to place the "edge" to anaerobic at 148 while Garmin places
> it at 138 (I guess for a Garmin training plan I need to stick to Garmin
> terminology).
> Anyway, while I can sustain efforts around 135 easile for an hour or
> more, a sprint bringing me to the 140-145 range exhasuts my legs after
> three minutes, making 5-minute intervals in those areas a meaningful
> excercise.
>
> Do you lot have any feedback on this?
>
> Rolf

Hi Rolf,
Everyone is different. The numbers set up by default on garmin, strava, or anywhere else are just averages for what ever demographic you plug yourself into.
- HR zones are dependent upon which philosophy you follow. The Garmin and Strava defaults are based on simply percentages of your max HR or your AT. They use the generic rating of 220-your age for max or 170-your age for AT. These numbers vary wildly from individual to individual, so unless you've actually performed testing to that effect and have a real number to plug in, the defaults are just guesswork, and could lead to severely low or high zone values.
- The current science for real values are based on transition points for aerobic threshold and anaerobic threshold. It used to be that exercise physiologists though aerobic and anaerobic thresholds were one in the same, but currently the understanding is that it's vastly more complicated, and the transitions are not only separate but much more analog, although non-linear. Because of this:
Dr. Stephen Seiler created the Polarized training plan, base on just 3 zones:
Zone 1 - below Aerobic threshold
Zone 2 - Between aerobic and anaerobic (some refer to this as 'sweet spot')

On Saturday, January 8, 2022 at 12:34:33 PM UTC-5, Rolf Mantel wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Black Friday brought me a sports watch and a heavy cold, staying in bed
> for a few days, and forcing me to sleep more than 10 hours per night
> until after christmas.
>
> The new sports watch told me I am far too fit for my age (VO2 Max at 47
> on the first walk after several weeks of weakness and 50 by now).
>
> So I had to try out that watch feature of a "HRM-driving training plan",
> picking the longest posiible plan 30 weeks with three trainings a week.
>
> The first training said "90 minute cycle ride aerobic zone 2" which made
> me learn that there are lost of differences between the names of heart
> rate zones afterwards (the watch counts warm-up as zone 1, so zone 2
> should have been just below 120).
> I went 90 minutes "normal commuting" speed which my watch counts as zone
> 3 and then had to get home another just over 10km.
> https://www.strava.com/activities/6466423490
>
> Next problem is that Strava and Garmin seem to have quite different
> ideas on which zones start and end where:
> At age 50, I have a resting heart rate of 45 and I'm supposed to have a
> max HR of 170 by age.
> Strava seems to place the "edge" to anaerobic at 148 while Garmin places
> it at 138 (I guess for a Garmin training plan I need to stick to Garmin
> terminology).
> Anyway, while I can sustain efforts around 135 easile for an hour or
> more, a sprint bringing me to the 140-145 range exhasuts my legs after
> three minutes, making 5-minute intervals in those areas a meaningful
> excercise.
>
> Do you lot have any feedback on this?
>
> Rolf

Hi Rolf,
Everyone is different. The numbers set up by default on garmin, strava, or anywhere else are just averages for what ever demographic you plug yourself into.
- HR zones are dependent upon which philosophy you follow. The Garmin and Strava defaults are based on simply percentages of your max HR or your aerobic threshold (AT). They use the generic rating of 220-your age for max or 170-your age for AT. These numbers vary wildly from individual to individual, so unless you've actually performed testing to that effect and have a real number to plug in, the defaults are just guesswork, and could lead to severely low or high zone values. For example, I'm 60, and have an absurdly high heart rate. It doesn't mean I'm faster or stronger than anyone else, just that it's high. This past august at the concord Criterium I averaged 170 for the one-hour race, with a max of 200. https://www.strava.com/activities/5754188955. If you're serious about your fitness, you need to do a ramp test to establish your AT, your lactate threshold (LT), and your max.

- The current science for real values are based on transition points for AT and LT. It used to be that exercise physiologists though AT and LT were one in the same, but currently the understanding is that it's vastly more complicated, and the transitions are not only separate but much more analog, although non-linear. Because of this:
Dr. Stephen Seiler created the Polarized training plan, base on just 3 zones:
Zone 1 - below AT
Zone 2 - Between AT and LT (some refer to this as 'sweet spot')
Zone 3 - above LT
his philosophy is known as the "80/20" plan, where 8o% of your training should be in zone 1 and 20% should be in zone 3, while the only time spent in zone 2 is transitioning between 1 and 3.

However, Andrew Coggin came up with a 7 zone scheme using the same concept of AT and LT, but correlating to power to HR (more on that in a minute).

Zone Type Power HR
1 Active Recovery <55% <68%
2 Endurance 56-75% 69-83%
3 Tempo 76-90% 84-94%
4 Lactate Threshold 91-105% 95-105%
5 VO2 Max 106-120% >106%
6 Anaerobic Capacity >121% max
7 Neuromuscular Power N/A N/A

This is a bit complicated, but there is a good write-up here: https://www.trainingpeaks.com/blog/power-training-levels/. Coggins plan is significantly more complicated, especially when it comes to setting up a training program, where as Seilers is quite simple, as can be seen above.

As far as correlating power to HR, that gets a bit tricky. Of course there will always be an HR lag, which is why many people prefer training by power.. However, pure power training fails to take in cardiac drift during training - expecting to be able to sustain a tempo power zone for an hour without your HR pushing well above that is a bit ridiculous. Even a long ride on the endurance power zone could end up pushing your HR into a lactate zone if you aren't paying attention the HR - and that is exactly what many athletes did when power meters started becoming accessible; ignoring their HR. Besides that, noting your HR in relation to power or perceived exertion is pretty critical as we age - it a great indicator of exhaustion and when you might need to dial it back.

I'm using a 5 zone plan based on LT:
1 active recovery <80%
2 endurance 80-90%
3 tempo 90-100%
4 Anaerobic Capacity 100% to max HR
5 Neuromuscular Power max HR

I've tweaked it to be a bit more manageable so I don't have to think as hard when I'm working out

1 active recovery <125 BPM
2 endurance 145 BPM
3 tempo 165 BPM
4 Anaerobic Capacity 175 BPM
5 Neuromuscular Power (n/a, just fkn go)

If you aren't competitive, simply keeping track of your HR WRT your perceived exertion is a good starting point, given of course that you have a decent ability to perceive your exertion (some people don't) . Whatever you do, try and do a ramp test - either on your own or go to some local facility that can do it for you - so you get your numbers reasonably accurate.

On Saturday, January 8, 2022 at 5:34:33 PM UTC, Rolf Mantel wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Black Friday brought me a sports watch and a heavy cold, staying in bed
> for a few days, and forcing me to sleep more than 10 hours per night
> until after christmas.
>
> The new sports watch told me I am far too fit for my age (VO2 Max at 47
> on the first walk after several weeks of weakness and 50 by now).
>
> So I had to try out that watch feature of a "HRM-driving training plan",
> picking the longest posiible plan 30 weeks with three trainings a week.
>
> The first training said "90 minute cycle ride aerobic zone 2" which made
> me learn that there are lost of differences between the names of heart
> rate zones afterwards (the watch counts warm-up as zone 1, so zone 2
> should have been just below 120).
> I went 90 minutes "normal commuting" speed which my watch counts as zone
> 3 and then had to get home another just over 10km.
> https://www.strava.com/activities/6466423490
>
> Next problem is that Strava and Garmin seem to have quite different
> ideas on which zones start and end where:
> At age 50, I have a resting heart rate of 45 and I'm supposed to have a
> max HR of 170 by age.
> Strava seems to place the "edge" to anaerobic at 148 while Garmin places
> it at 138 (I guess for a Garmin training plan I need to stick to Garmin
> terminology).
> Anyway, while I can sustain efforts around 135 easile for an hour or
> more, a sprint bringing me to the 140-145 range exhasuts my legs after
> three minutes, making 5-minute intervals in those areas a meaningful
> excercise.
>
> Do you lot have any feedback on this?
>
> Rolf

I use the electric motor on my bike to keep my heart rate under the maximum my cardiologist considers suitable to my age and condition. The setup is simple, a Polar H7 chest belt as a sender, Polar's free Beat software on my bike iPhone on the handlebars, and my thumb either on the motor's software program selector (basically a 9 speed gear change) or for finer control on the thumb throttle. That's it, real simple. My cardiologist is also a demon for "warm-up *and* warm-down" but just riding in the correct direction on whatever loop around my house I choose takes care of that without having to keep a complicated schedule in my eyeline on the handlebars.

The only slight difficulty was negotiating the maximum permitted heart rate in the beginning. The physios I worked with after heart surgery claimed they weren't permitted to let any patient exercise over 75% of age-related max.
When I pointed out that I cycle anyway with a doctor and a nurse, chums of decades' standing, very competent people indeed, they simply said they weren't authorized under any circumstances to let me go over 75%. I wanted to go to 79%, which is enough below the lactate level (undesirable, possible negative effects, at that time considered to operate between 80 and 83
%) if you watch the HR level (in my eyeline) or set an audible alarm, and finally negotiated that small increment with my cardiologist and have since adjusted it with advancing age.

About your short term stress. After heart surgery I remembered that the farmers' Co-op store had an L-shaped parking lot, both arms wide enough for a U-turn at speed, and, best of all, two short, sharp inclines. Even better, since I intended to ride intervals in the middle of the night when I wouldn't have to contend with cars, across the road, with a clear view on the parking lot, was a permanently manned factory gate, where I could ask the gateman to keep an eye on me and call the night duty locum, almost next door, in case I fell of my bike. Here I rode increasing numbers of intervals and within weeks was strong enough to go out into the countryside as if years of high living and overworking hadn't caught up with me and nearly killed me.

I had a dedicated sport watch, the top Ciclosport model, once, long before the period described above. It cost half the price of a top Gazelle bicycle, and broke on literally the first day after its 3-year warranty ran out. I didn't replace it until last year, when on assurances from reviewers on the net that the thing works with the iPhone, I bought a Samsung Galaxy Watch3 (that's how Samsung styles it, no space).

The reviewers on the net must have been paid by Samsung, because the Watch3 works only partially with an iPhone, and at that intermittently, with dropouts and downtimes at the most inconvenient times. The fall alarm, a very desirable feature if it works, doesn't work at all with the iPhone. I next tried it with a Samsung Galaxy phone, a huge, inconvenient thing (I tend to favour the SE class of small aluminium iPhones, and do my reading on iPads) and even with their own house brand phone, Samsung's smart watch can't keep up the connection reliably. In the Samsung Watch3 voice control (Bixby) is incompetent next to Apple's Siri. The Watch reports your heart rate constantly but, suspiciously, reports a heartbeat even when the watch isn't on your arm; the vaunted blood pressure measurement doesn't work at all with the iPhone and doesn't give reliable readings with a Galaxy phone when compared to my calibrated manual and electronic pressure band devices. Still, the Watch3 isn't a total loss as I collect watches, and it has other more competently implemented features, for instance sending notifications from the iPhone to the Watch3, and is one of the few smartwatches that isn't offensively inelegant. Even if it doesn't have the health-related features I bought it for, the established programmability gives you thousands of complications that in mechanical watches would weight pounds rather than ounces, and you can change the watch face and facilities with a press of your finger on the dial and a quick turn of the best mechanical bezel in the business; the butter-smooth bidirectional bezel of the Watch3 leaves even Rolex for dead. Samsung supplies a decent quality of face-making software free of charge.. If everything worked as advertised, Samsung's Watch3 would still be pretty expensive, even if not in Apple's class; as it is, it is overpriced as just another electronic watch.

Andre Jute -- 'orrible 'orology.

On Saturday, January 8, 2022 at 7:17:39 PM UTC, lou.h...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, January 8, 2022 at 6:34:33 PM UTC+1, Rolf Mantel wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Black Friday brought me a sports watch and a heavy cold, staying in bed
> > for a few days, and forcing me to sleep more than 10 hours per night
> > until after christmas.
> >
> > The new sports watch told me I am far too fit for my age (VO2 Max at 47
> > on the first walk after several weeks of weakness and 50 by now).
> >
> > So I had to try out that watch feature of a "HRM-driving training plan",
> > picking the longest posiible plan 30 weeks with three trainings a week.
> >
> > The first training said "90 minute cycle ride aerobic zone 2" which made
> > me learn that there are lost of differences between the names of heart
> > rate zones afterwards (the watch counts warm-up as zone 1, so zone 2
> > should have been just below 120).
> > I went 90 minutes "normal commuting" speed which my watch counts as zone
> > 3 and then had to get home another just over 10km.
> > https://www.strava.com/activities/6466423490
> >
> > Next problem is that Strava and Garmin seem to have quite different
> > ideas on which zones start and end where:
> > At age 50, I have a resting heart rate of 45 and I'm supposed to have a
> > max HR of 170 by age.
> > Strava seems to place the "edge" to anaerobic at 148 while Garmin places
> > it at 138 (I guess for a Garmin training plan I need to stick to Garmin
> > terminology).
> > Anyway, while I can sustain efforts around 135 easile for an hour or
> > more, a sprint bringing me to the 140-145 range exhasuts my legs after
> > three minutes, making 5-minute intervals in those areas a meaningful
> > excercise.
> >
> > Do you lot have any feedback on this?
> >
> > Rolf
> The first thing you have to do is define your own hr or power zones. The default Garmin zones make no sense to me. An easy ride for me is at a heartrate of 120 bpm for instance. For me it is almost impossible to ride at a heartrate lower than 100 bpm.
>
> Lou
>
220 - 60 = 160BPM
120/160 = 75%
75% = a comfortable baseline for a fit person
Looks like you're right. Maybe Garmins power zones were selected by their liability lawyer. -- AJ

Lou Holtman <lou.holtman@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Saturday, January 8, 2022 at 6:34:33 PM UTC+1, Rolf Mantel wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Black Friday brought me a sports watch and a heavy cold, staying in bed
>> for a few days, and forcing me to sleep more than 10 hours per night
>> until after christmas.
>>
>> The new sports watch told me I am far too fit for my age (VO2 Max at 47
>> on the first walk after several weeks of weakness and 50 by now).
>>
>> So I had to try out that watch feature of a "HRM-driving training plan",
>> picking the longest posiible plan 30 weeks with three trainings a week.
>>
>> The first training said "90 minute cycle ride aerobic zone 2" which made
>> me learn that there are lost of differences between the names of heart
>> rate zones afterwards (the watch counts warm-up as zone 1, so zone 2
>> should have been just below 120).
>> I went 90 minutes "normal commuting" speed which my watch counts as zone
>> 3 and then had to get home another just over 10km.
>> https://www.strava.com/activities/6466423490
>>
>> Next problem is that Strava and Garmin seem to have quite different
>> ideas on which zones start and end where:
>> At age 50, I have a resting heart rate of 45 and I'm supposed to have a
>> max HR of 170 by age.
>> Strava seems to place the "edge" to anaerobic at 148 while Garmin places
>> it at 138 (I guess for a Garmin training plan I need to stick to Garmin
>> terminology).
>> Anyway, while I can sustain efforts around 135 easile for an hour or
>> more, a sprint bringing me to the 140-145 range exhasuts my legs after
>> three minutes, making 5-minute intervals in those areas a meaningful
>> excercise.
>>
>> Do you lot have any feedback on this?
>>
>> Rolf
>
> The first thing you have to do is define your own hr or power zones. The
> default Garmin zones make no sense to me. An easy ride for me is at a
> heartrate of 120 bpm for instance. For me it is almost impossible to ride
> at a heartrate lower than 100 bpm.
>
> Lou
>

+1

On Sunday, January 16, 2022 at 5:42:14 AM UTC-8, Andre Jute wrote:
> On Saturday, January 8, 2022 at 7:17:39 PM UTC, lou.h...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Saturday, January 8, 2022 at 6:34:33 PM UTC+1, Rolf Mantel wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > Black Friday brought me a sports watch and a heavy cold, staying in bed
> > > for a few days, and forcing me to sleep more than 10 hours per night
> > > until after christmas.
> > >
> > > The new sports watch told me I am far too fit for my age (VO2 Max at 47
> > > on the first walk after several weeks of weakness and 50 by now).
> > >
> > > So I had to try out that watch feature of a "HRM-driving training plan",
> > > picking the longest posiible plan 30 weeks with three trainings a week.
> > >
> > > The first training said "90 minute cycle ride aerobic zone 2" which made
> > > me learn that there are lost of differences between the names of heart
> > > rate zones afterwards (the watch counts warm-up as zone 1, so zone 2
> > > should have been just below 120).
> > > I went 90 minutes "normal commuting" speed which my watch counts as zone
> > > 3 and then had to get home another just over 10km.
> > > https://www.strava.com/activities/6466423490
> > >
> > > Next problem is that Strava and Garmin seem to have quite different
> > > ideas on which zones start and end where:
> > > At age 50, I have a resting heart rate of 45 and I'm supposed to have a
> > > max HR of 170 by age.
> > > Strava seems to place the "edge" to anaerobic at 148 while Garmin places
> > > it at 138 (I guess for a Garmin training plan I need to stick to Garmin
> > > terminology).
> > > Anyway, while I can sustain efforts around 135 easile for an hour or
> > > more, a sprint bringing me to the 140-145 range exhasuts my legs after
> > > three minutes, making 5-minute intervals in those areas a meaningful
> > > excercise.
> > >
> > > Do you lot have any feedback on this?
> > >
> > > Rolf
> > The first thing you have to do is define your own hr or power zones. The default Garmin zones make no sense to me. An easy ride for me is at a heartrate of 120 bpm for instance. For me it is almost impossible to ride at a heartrate lower than 100 bpm.
> >
> > Lou
> >
> 220 - 60 = 160BPM
> 120/160 = 75%
> 75% = a comfortable baseline for a fit person
> Looks like you're right. Maybe Garmins power zones were selected by their liability lawyer. -- AJ

I don't have to worry since my lung damage prevents me from holding power long enough to damage anything. Except my pride.

On Saturday, January 8, 2022 at 11:34:33 AM UTC-6, Rolf Mantel wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Black Friday brought me a sports watch and a heavy cold, staying in bed
> for a few days, and forcing me to sleep more than 10 hours per night
> until after christmas.
>
> The new sports watch told me I am far too fit for my age (VO2 Max at 47
> on the first walk after several weeks of weakness and 50 by now).
>
> So I had to try out that watch feature of a "HRM-driving training plan",
> picking the longest posiible plan 30 weeks with three trainings a week.
>
> The first training said "90 minute cycle ride aerobic zone 2" which made
> me learn that there are lost of differences between the names of heart
> rate zones afterwards (the watch counts warm-up as zone 1, so zone 2
> should have been just below 120).
> I went 90 minutes "normal commuting" speed which my watch counts as zone
> 3 and then had to get home another just over 10km.
> https://www.strava.com/activities/6466423490
>
> Next problem is that Strava and Garmin seem to have quite different
> ideas on which zones start and end where:
> At age 50, I have a resting heart rate of 45 and I'm supposed to have a
> max HR of 170 by age.
> Strava seems to place the "edge" to anaerobic at 148 while Garmin places
> it at 138 (I guess for a Garmin training plan I need to stick to Garmin
> terminology).
> Anyway, while I can sustain efforts around 135 easile for an hour or
> more, a sprint bringing me to the 140-145 range exhasuts my legs after
> three minutes, making 5-minute intervals in those areas a meaningful
> excercise.
>
> Do you lot have any feedback on this?
>
> Rolf

Rolf I have some real data that might be of interest. I use a garmin HR monitor the new duo and it is great. The new garmin watches I got about 6 months ago are a 645 and 935. My background is I am a life long distance runner and cyclist. These days I cycle as I have runner's dystonia so running can be a challenge. My lifetime running mileage is at least 85,000 miles and my cycling mileage has not caught that yet but hopefully in a few years. My resting HR is 38-40. Sometimes sleeping my HR drops to 35. I am not a particularly fast runner my best marathon is 3 hours and 6 minutes and my fastest mile ever ran only 5:41 at age 27.

Well I am 60 now and my garmin says my VO2 is 40. I don't think it is accurate for the running because due to my dystonia I cannot sustain running more than about 400 meters withouth have to regroup my stride. It has nothing to do with being out of shape it just that my legs get messed up and muscles fire wrong. I have to stop and walk a few steps or even 200 meters then go at it again. This is because the muscles in the legs tighten up and will not relax to allow proper stride.

On a bike it is a different story. I can ride like no issues at all and go at it full tilt. My problem is I cannot really get my HR up to what Garmin and Strava consider a high zone. On a typical hard 50 mile ride I might average HR might get to 120 but many times 115. The maximum I can get my HR is the maybe 145 and by then I am wiped out. I can however sustain long periods at 135 just like you. Today on the trainer inside I went 22 miles in 69 minutes with HR average 127. That is pretty high by my standards but only once did I get to 143. At that point I could not produce any more energy. For me to get to my theoretical max HR I would need to go to 160. I have not seen 160 in maybe 2 years and that was on a mile climb up a cat 4 hill. I was ready to bailout and fall over on the bike I was not sure I could dismount properly.

My guess is that the low resting HR suggest the higher Max I should have, I don't really. Running at top speed I can regularly get my HR to go above 140 but not sure how much more I can. On the bike above 140 is a killer. It is certainly anaerobic for myself. These watches deal with mostly average situations and mine might not be average. One thing I can do that most cyclist cannot is I must be able to keep my glycogen stores better than most. I don't need to stop and eat or eat as I ride easily for 75 mile rides. At 100 to finish without bonking bad I do need some calories. I don't even need drink all that much either. My guess is cycling on the low end of the HR scale keeps me going longer. I have road charity rides where groups of faster riders and younger go out fast and furious. I finish with them because they stop and take breaks. They are 20-30 years younger and can out do me in a race for sure but if it goes on long enough I might close the gap.
Deacon mark

On Sunday, January 16, 2022 at 11:11:23 PM UTC+1, deaco...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, January 8, 2022 at 11:34:33 AM UTC-6, Rolf Mantel wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Black Friday brought me a sports watch and a heavy cold, staying in bed
> > for a few days, and forcing me to sleep more than 10 hours per night
> > until after christmas.
> >
> > The new sports watch told me I am far too fit for my age (VO2 Max at 47
> > on the first walk after several weeks of weakness and 50 by now).
> >
> > So I had to try out that watch feature of a "HRM-driving training plan",
> > picking the longest posiible plan 30 weeks with three trainings a week.
> >
> > The first training said "90 minute cycle ride aerobic zone 2" which made
> > me learn that there are lost of differences between the names of heart
> > rate zones afterwards (the watch counts warm-up as zone 1, so zone 2
> > should have been just below 120).
> > I went 90 minutes "normal commuting" speed which my watch counts as zone
> > 3 and then had to get home another just over 10km.
> > https://www.strava.com/activities/6466423490
> >
> > Next problem is that Strava and Garmin seem to have quite different
> > ideas on which zones start and end where:
> > At age 50, I have a resting heart rate of 45 and I'm supposed to have a
> > max HR of 170 by age.
> > Strava seems to place the "edge" to anaerobic at 148 while Garmin places
> > it at 138 (I guess for a Garmin training plan I need to stick to Garmin
> > terminology).
> > Anyway, while I can sustain efforts around 135 easile for an hour or
> > more, a sprint bringing me to the 140-145 range exhasuts my legs after
> > three minutes, making 5-minute intervals in those areas a meaningful
> > excercise.
> >
> > Do you lot have any feedback on this?
> >
> > Rolf
> Rolf I have some real data that might be of interest. I use a garmin HR monitor the new duo and it is great. The new garmin watches I got about 6 months ago are a 645 and 935. My background is I am a life long distance runner and cyclist. These days I cycle as I have runner's dystonia so running can be a challenge. My lifetime running mileage is at least 85,000 miles and my cycling mileage has not caught that yet but hopefully in a few years. My resting HR is 38-40. Sometimes sleeping my HR drops to 35. I am not a particularly fast runner my best marathon is 3 hours and 6 minutes and my fastest mile ever ran only 5:41 at age 27.
>
> Well I am 60 now and my garmin says my VO2 is 40. I don't think it is accurate for the running because due to my dystonia I cannot sustain running more than about 400 meters withouth have to regroup my stride. It has nothing to do with being out of shape it just that my legs get messed up and muscles fire wrong. I have to stop and walk a few steps or even 200 meters then go at it again. This is because the muscles in the legs tighten up and will not relax to allow proper stride.
>
> On a bike it is a different story. I can ride like no issues at all and go at it full tilt. My problem is I cannot really get my HR up to what Garmin and Strava consider a high zone. On a typical hard 50 mile ride I might average HR might get to 120 but many times 115. The maximum I can get my HR is the maybe 145 and by then I am wiped out. I can however sustain long periods at 135 just like you. Today on the trainer inside I went 22 miles in 69 minutes with HR average 127. That is pretty high by my standards but only once did I get to 143. At that point I could not produce any more energy. For me to get to my theoretical max HR I would need to go to 160. I have not seen 160 in maybe 2 years and that was on a mile climb up a cat 4 hill. I was ready to bailout and fall over on the bike I was not sure I could dismount properly.
>
> My guess is that the low resting HR suggest the higher Max I should have, I don't really. Running at top speed I can regularly get my HR to go above 140 but not sure how much more I can. On the bike above 140 is a killer. It is certainly anaerobic for myself. These watches deal with mostly average situations and mine might not be average. One thing I can do that most cyclist cannot is I must be able to keep my glycogen stores better than most. I don't need to stop and eat or eat as I ride easily for 75 mile rides. At 100 to finish without bonking bad I do need some calories. I don't even need drink all that much either. My guess is cycling on the low end of the HR scale keeps me going longer. I have road charity rides where groups of faster riders and younger go out fast and furious. I finish with them because they stop and take breaks. They are 20-30 years younger and can out do me in a race for sure but if it goes on long enough I might close the gap.
> Deacon mark

Mark, you have a big low rev engine. If you don’t have to eat during a 3-4 hr ride you are burning fat efficient or you ride at a low intensity.
On my 76 km ride last Friday my average hr was 142 bpm, average intensity. I’m 65 yo. I have a small high rev engine. Didn’t had to eat but I did. Stopped at a bakery for a short 10 minutes break because I like pastry and it is off season so speed doesn’t matter. It was too cold and foggy anyway. People differ, nothing to worry about. I always say to people to start riding with a hrm and and couple the numbers you see to how you feel. For that you have to go over the limit from time to time.

Lou

On Sun, 16 Jan 2022 14:11:21 -0800 (PST), Mark Cleary
<deaconmjc08@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Saturday, January 8, 2022 at 11:34:33 AM UTC-6, Rolf Mantel wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Black Friday brought me a sports watch and a heavy cold, staying in bed
>> for a few days, and forcing me to sleep more than 10 hours per night
>> until after christmas.
>>
>> The new sports watch told me I am far too fit for my age (VO2 Max at 47
>> on the first walk after several weeks of weakness and 50 by now).
>>
>> So I had to try out that watch feature of a "HRM-driving training plan",
>> picking the longest posiible plan 30 weeks with three trainings a week.
>>
>> The first training said "90 minute cycle ride aerobic zone 2" which made
>> me learn that there are lost of differences between the names of heart
>> rate zones afterwards (the watch counts warm-up as zone 1, so zone 2
>> should have been just below 120).
>> I went 90 minutes "normal commuting" speed which my watch counts as zone
>> 3 and then had to get home another just over 10km.
>> https://www.strava.com/activities/6466423490
>>
>> Next problem is that Strava and Garmin seem to have quite different
>> ideas on which zones start and end where:
>> At age 50, I have a resting heart rate of 45 and I'm supposed to have a
>> max HR of 170 by age.
>> Strava seems to place the "edge" to anaerobic at 148 while Garmin places
>> it at 138 (I guess for a Garmin training plan I need to stick to Garmin
>> terminology).
>> Anyway, while I can sustain efforts around 135 easile for an hour or
>> more, a sprint bringing me to the 140-145 range exhasuts my legs after
>> three minutes, making 5-minute intervals in those areas a meaningful
>> excercise.
>>
>> Do you lot have any feedback on this?
>>
>> Rolf
>
>Rolf I have some real data that might be of interest. I use a garmin HR monitor the new duo and it is great. The new garmin watches I got about 6 months ago are a 645 and 935. My background is I am a life long distance runner and cyclist. These days I cycle as I have runner's dystonia so running can be a challenge. My lifetime running mileage is at least 85,000 miles and my cycling mileage has not caught that yet but hopefully in a few years. My resting HR is 38-40. Sometimes sleeping my HR drops to 35. I am not a particularly fast runner my best marathon is 3 hours and 6 minutes and my fastest mile ever ran only 5:41 at age 27.
>
>Well I am 60 now and my garmin says my VO2 is 40. I don't think it is accurate for the running because due to my dystonia I cannot sustain running more than about 400 meters withouth have to regroup my stride. It has nothing to do with being out of shape it just that my legs get messed up and muscles fire wrong. I have to stop and walk a few steps or even 200 meters then go at it again. This is because the muscles in the legs tighten up and will not relax to allow proper stride.
>
>On a bike it is a different story. I can ride like no issues at all and go at it full tilt. My problem is I cannot really get my HR up to what Garmin and Strava consider a high zone. On a typical hard 50 mile ride I might average HR might get to 120 but many times 115. The maximum I can get my HR is the maybe 145 and by then I am wiped out. I can however sustain long periods at 135 just like you. Today on the trainer inside I went 22 miles in 69 minutes with HR average 127. That is pretty high by my standards but only once did I get to 143. At that point I could not produce any more energy. For me to get to my theoretical max HR I would need to go to 160. I have not seen 160 in maybe 2 years and that was on a mile climb up a cat 4 hill. I was ready to bailout and fall over on the bike I was not sure I could dismount properly.
>
>My guess is that the low resting HR suggest the higher Max I should have, I don't really. Running at top speed I can regularly get my HR to go above 140 but not sure how much more I can. On the bike above 140 is a killer. It is certainly anaerobic for myself. These watches deal with mostly average situations and mine might not be average. One thing I can do that most cyclist cannot is I must be able to keep my glycogen stores better than most. I don't need to stop and eat or eat as I ride easily for 75 mile rides. At 100 to finish without bonking bad I do need some calories. I don't even need drink all that much either. My guess is cycling on the low end of the HR scale keeps me going longer. I have road charity rides where groups of faster riders and younger go out fast and furious. I finish with them because they stop and take breaks. They are 20-30 years younger and can out do me in a race for sure but if it goes on long enough I might close the gap.
>Deacon mark

I had no idea what runners dystonia is and had to google it and I came
across the following that might be of interest.
https://n.neurology.org/content/86/16_Supplement/P1.043
and, by the way, a VO2-max of 40 is pretty low, in the "male
sedentary" range (:-)
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Sunday, January 16, 2022 at 2:37:29 PM UTC-8, Lou Holtman wrote:
> On Sunday, January 16, 2022 at 11:11:23 PM UTC+1, deaco...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Saturday, January 8, 2022 at 11:34:33 AM UTC-6, Rolf Mantel wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > Black Friday brought me a sports watch and a heavy cold, staying in bed
> > > for a few days, and forcing me to sleep more than 10 hours per night
> > > until after christmas.
> > >
> > > The new sports watch told me I am far too fit for my age (VO2 Max at 47
> > > on the first walk after several weeks of weakness and 50 by now).
> > >
> > > So I had to try out that watch feature of a "HRM-driving training plan",
> > > picking the longest posiible plan 30 weeks with three trainings a week.
> > >
> > > The first training said "90 minute cycle ride aerobic zone 2" which made
> > > me learn that there are lost of differences between the names of heart
> > > rate zones afterwards (the watch counts warm-up as zone 1, so zone 2
> > > should have been just below 120).
> > > I went 90 minutes "normal commuting" speed which my watch counts as zone
> > > 3 and then had to get home another just over 10km.
> > > https://www.strava.com/activities/6466423490
> > >
> > > Next problem is that Strava and Garmin seem to have quite different
> > > ideas on which zones start and end where:
> > > At age 50, I have a resting heart rate of 45 and I'm supposed to have a
> > > max HR of 170 by age.
> > > Strava seems to place the "edge" to anaerobic at 148 while Garmin places
> > > it at 138 (I guess for a Garmin training plan I need to stick to Garmin
> > > terminology).
> > > Anyway, while I can sustain efforts around 135 easile for an hour or
> > > more, a sprint bringing me to the 140-145 range exhasuts my legs after
> > > three minutes, making 5-minute intervals in those areas a meaningful
> > > excercise.
> > >
> > > Do you lot have any feedback on this?
> > >
> > > Rolf
> > Rolf I have some real data that might be of interest. I use a garmin HR monitor the new duo and it is great. The new garmin watches I got about 6 months ago are a 645 and 935. My background is I am a life long distance runner and cyclist. These days I cycle as I have runner's dystonia so running can be a challenge. My lifetime running mileage is at least 85,000 miles and my cycling mileage has not caught that yet but hopefully in a few years. My resting HR is 38-40. Sometimes sleeping my HR drops to 35. I am not a particularly fast runner my best marathon is 3 hours and 6 minutes and my fastest mile ever ran only 5:41 at age 27.
> >
> > Well I am 60 now and my garmin says my VO2 is 40. I don't think it is accurate for the running because due to my dystonia I cannot sustain running more than about 400 meters withouth have to regroup my stride. It has nothing to do with being out of shape it just that my legs get messed up and muscles fire wrong. I have to stop and walk a few steps or even 200 meters then go at it again. This is because the muscles in the legs tighten up and will not relax to allow proper stride.
> >
> > On a bike it is a different story. I can ride like no issues at all and go at it full tilt. My problem is I cannot really get my HR up to what Garmin and Strava consider a high zone. On a typical hard 50 mile ride I might average HR might get to 120 but many times 115. The maximum I can get my HR is the maybe 145 and by then I am wiped out. I can however sustain long periods at 135 just like you. Today on the trainer inside I went 22 miles in 69 minutes with HR average 127. That is pretty high by my standards but only once did I get to 143. At that point I could not produce any more energy.. For me to get to my theoretical max HR I would need to go to 160. I have not seen 160 in maybe 2 years and that was on a mile climb up a cat 4 hill. I was ready to bailout and fall over on the bike I was not sure I could dismount properly.
> >
> > My guess is that the low resting HR suggest the higher Max I should have, I don't really. Running at top speed I can regularly get my HR to go above 140 but not sure how much more I can. On the bike above 140 is a killer. It is certainly anaerobic for myself. These watches deal with mostly average situations and mine might not be average. One thing I can do that most cyclist cannot is I must be able to keep my glycogen stores better than most.. I don't need to stop and eat or eat as I ride easily for 75 mile rides. At 100 to finish without bonking bad I do need some calories. I don't even need drink all that much either. My guess is cycling on the low end of the HR scale keeps me going longer. I have road charity rides where groups of faster riders and younger go out fast and furious. I finish with them because they stop and take breaks. They are 20-30 years younger and can out do me in a race for sure but if it goes on long enough I might close the gap.
> > Deacon mark
> Mark, you have a big low rev engine. If you don’t have to eat during a 3-4 hr ride you are burning fat efficient or you ride at a low intensity.
> On my 76 km ride last Friday my average hr was 142 bpm, average intensity.. I’m 65 yo. I have a small high rev engine. Didn’t had to eat but I did. Stopped at a bakery for a short 10 minutes break because I like pastry and it is off season so speed doesn’t matter. It was too cold and foggy anyway. People differ, nothing to worry about. I always say to people to start riding with a hrm and and couple the numbers you see to how you feel. For that you have to go over the limit from time to time.

I have the Garmin matched to my wheel and crank configuration and it does show red meaning it has found it. Yet yesterday it wasn't showing the RPM. Can you suggest a reason for that? Is there something I have to do for the Garmin to understand that I am riding Bike 1 when the only bike on the computer is 1?

On Sunday, January 16, 2022 at 4:50:44 PM UTC-6, John B. wrote:
> On Sun, 16 Jan 2022 14:11:21 -0800 (PST), Mark Cleary
> <deaco...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Saturday, January 8, 2022 at 11:34:33 AM UTC-6, Rolf Mantel wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> Black Friday brought me a sports watch and a heavy cold, staying in bed
> >> for a few days, and forcing me to sleep more than 10 hours per night
> >> until after christmas.
> >>
> >> The new sports watch told me I am far too fit for my age (VO2 Max at 47
> >> on the first walk after several weeks of weakness and 50 by now).
> >>
> >> So I had to try out that watch feature of a "HRM-driving training plan",
> >> picking the longest posiible plan 30 weeks with three trainings a week..
> >>
> >> The first training said "90 minute cycle ride aerobic zone 2" which made
> >> me learn that there are lost of differences between the names of heart
> >> rate zones afterwards (the watch counts warm-up as zone 1, so zone 2
> >> should have been just below 120).
> >> I went 90 minutes "normal commuting" speed which my watch counts as zone
> >> 3 and then had to get home another just over 10km.
> >> https://www.strava.com/activities/6466423490
> >>
> >> Next problem is that Strava and Garmin seem to have quite different
> >> ideas on which zones start and end where:
> >> At age 50, I have a resting heart rate of 45 and I'm supposed to have a
> >> max HR of 170 by age.
> >> Strava seems to place the "edge" to anaerobic at 148 while Garmin places
> >> it at 138 (I guess for a Garmin training plan I need to stick to Garmin
> >> terminology).
> >> Anyway, while I can sustain efforts around 135 easile for an hour or
> >> more, a sprint bringing me to the 140-145 range exhasuts my legs after
> >> three minutes, making 5-minute intervals in those areas a meaningful
> >> excercise.
> >>
> >> Do you lot have any feedback on this?
> >>
> >> Rolf
> >
> >Rolf I have some real data that might be of interest. I use a garmin HR monitor the new duo and it is great. The new garmin watches I got about 6 months ago are a 645 and 935. My background is I am a life long distance runner and cyclist. These days I cycle as I have runner's dystonia so running can be a challenge. My lifetime running mileage is at least 85,000 miles and my cycling mileage has not caught that yet but hopefully in a few years. My resting HR is 38-40. Sometimes sleeping my HR drops to 35. I am not a particularly fast runner my best marathon is 3 hours and 6 minutes and my fastest mile ever ran only 5:41 at age 27.
> >
> >Well I am 60 now and my garmin says my VO2 is 40. I don't think it is accurate for the running because due to my dystonia I cannot sustain running more than about 400 meters withouth have to regroup my stride. It has nothing to do with being out of shape it just that my legs get messed up and muscles fire wrong. I have to stop and walk a few steps or even 200 meters then go at it again. This is because the muscles in the legs tighten up and will not relax to allow proper stride.
> >
> >On a bike it is a different story. I can ride like no issues at all and go at it full tilt. My problem is I cannot really get my HR up to what Garmin and Strava consider a high zone. On a typical hard 50 mile ride I might average HR might get to 120 but many times 115. The maximum I can get my HR is the maybe 145 and by then I am wiped out. I can however sustain long periods at 135 just like you. Today on the trainer inside I went 22 miles in 69 minutes with HR average 127. That is pretty high by my standards but only once did I get to 143. At that point I could not produce any more energy. For me to get to my theoretical max HR I would need to go to 160. I have not seen 160 in maybe 2 years and that was on a mile climb up a cat 4 hill. I was ready to bailout and fall over on the bike I was not sure I could dismount properly.
> >
> >My guess is that the low resting HR suggest the higher Max I should have, I don't really. Running at top speed I can regularly get my HR to go above 140 but not sure how much more I can. On the bike above 140 is a killer. It is certainly anaerobic for myself. These watches deal with mostly average situations and mine might not be average. One thing I can do that most cyclist cannot is I must be able to keep my glycogen stores better than most. I don't need to stop and eat or eat as I ride easily for 75 mile rides. At 100 to finish without bonking bad I do need some calories. I don't even need drink all that much either. My guess is cycling on the low end of the HR scale keeps me going longer. I have road charity rides where groups of faster riders and younger go out fast and furious. I finish with them because they stop and take breaks. They are 20-30 years younger and can out do me in a race for sure but if it goes on long enough I might close the gap.
> >Deacon mark
> I had no idea what runners dystonia is and had to google it and I came
> across the following that might be of interest.
> https://n.neurology.org/content/86/16_Supplement/P1.043
> and, by the way, a VO2-max of 40 is pretty low, in the "male
> sedentary" range (:-)
> --
> Cheers,
>
> John B.
I really do not know what my max VO2 is but my guess it is much better than average. A persons Max VO2 is largely genetic in make up. You can increase it with training but only to a certain point and the rest is good genes. As far as being in shape and my VO2 I can do 5 hour century or get pretty close solo, on a good day and course that is not very hilly. I would imagine in a group ride much much better but I ride completely by myself on almost all rides. I have not road in a paceline in years. My son who is 22 and a track runner he can run a sub 2 minute 800 meters. He can get his heart rate over 200 with no much trouble and sometimes runs 6-10 miles with HR averaging in the 180's. He also have 50 second 400 meter speed. Now my guess is he has huge VO2 but he is also 6'3" and about 147 pounds. As far as my dystonia it came on and I went from training at 9 minute miles to 10 min miles then 11 and 12 and now I have to walk. It is no fun for sure and hard to explain, except it is not progressive and not fatal.
Deacon Mark

On Monday, January 17, 2022 at 5:28:48 PM UTC+1, Tom Kunich wrote:
> On Sunday, January 16, 2022 at 2:37:29 PM UTC-8, Lou Holtman wrote:
> > On Sunday, January 16, 2022 at 11:11:23 PM UTC+1, deaco...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Saturday, January 8, 2022 at 11:34:33 AM UTC-6, Rolf Mantel wrote:
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > Black Friday brought me a sports watch and a heavy cold, staying in bed
> > > > for a few days, and forcing me to sleep more than 10 hours per night
> > > > until after christmas.
> > > >
> > > > The new sports watch told me I am far too fit for my age (VO2 Max at 47
> > > > on the first walk after several weeks of weakness and 50 by now).
> > > >
> > > > So I had to try out that watch feature of a "HRM-driving training plan",
> > > > picking the longest posiible plan 30 weeks with three trainings a week.
> > > >
> > > > The first training said "90 minute cycle ride aerobic zone 2" which made
> > > > me learn that there are lost of differences between the names of heart
> > > > rate zones afterwards (the watch counts warm-up as zone 1, so zone 2
> > > > should have been just below 120).
> > > > I went 90 minutes "normal commuting" speed which my watch counts as zone
> > > > 3 and then had to get home another just over 10km.
> > > > https://www.strava.com/activities/6466423490
> > > >
> > > > Next problem is that Strava and Garmin seem to have quite different
> > > > ideas on which zones start and end where:
> > > > At age 50, I have a resting heart rate of 45 and I'm supposed to have a
> > > > max HR of 170 by age.
> > > > Strava seems to place the "edge" to anaerobic at 148 while Garmin places
> > > > it at 138 (I guess for a Garmin training plan I need to stick to Garmin
> > > > terminology).
> > > > Anyway, while I can sustain efforts around 135 easile for an hour or
> > > > more, a sprint bringing me to the 140-145 range exhasuts my legs after
> > > > three minutes, making 5-minute intervals in those areas a meaningful
> > > > excercise.
> > > >
> > > > Do you lot have any feedback on this?
> > > >
> > > > Rolf
> > > Rolf I have some real data that might be of interest. I use a garmin HR monitor the new duo and it is great. The new garmin watches I got about 6 months ago are a 645 and 935. My background is I am a life long distance runner and cyclist. These days I cycle as I have runner's dystonia so running can be a challenge. My lifetime running mileage is at least 85,000 miles and my cycling mileage has not caught that yet but hopefully in a few years. My resting HR is 38-40. Sometimes sleeping my HR drops to 35. I am not a particularly fast runner my best marathon is 3 hours and 6 minutes and my fastest mile ever ran only 5:41 at age 27.
> > >
> > > Well I am 60 now and my garmin says my VO2 is 40. I don't think it is accurate for the running because due to my dystonia I cannot sustain running more than about 400 meters withouth have to regroup my stride. It has nothing to do with being out of shape it just that my legs get messed up and muscles fire wrong. I have to stop and walk a few steps or even 200 meters then go at it again. This is because the muscles in the legs tighten up and will not relax to allow proper stride.
> > >
> > > On a bike it is a different story. I can ride like no issues at all and go at it full tilt. My problem is I cannot really get my HR up to what Garmin and Strava consider a high zone. On a typical hard 50 mile ride I might average HR might get to 120 but many times 115. The maximum I can get my HR is the maybe 145 and by then I am wiped out. I can however sustain long periods at 135 just like you. Today on the trainer inside I went 22 miles in 69 minutes with HR average 127. That is pretty high by my standards but only once did I get to 143. At that point I could not produce any more energy. For me to get to my theoretical max HR I would need to go to 160. I have not seen 160 in maybe 2 years and that was on a mile climb up a cat 4 hill. I was ready to bailout and fall over on the bike I was not sure I could dismount properly.
> > >
> > > My guess is that the low resting HR suggest the higher Max I should have, I don't really. Running at top speed I can regularly get my HR to go above 140 but not sure how much more I can. On the bike above 140 is a killer. It is certainly anaerobic for myself. These watches deal with mostly average situations and mine might not be average. One thing I can do that most cyclist cannot is I must be able to keep my glycogen stores better than most. I don't need to stop and eat or eat as I ride easily for 75 mile rides. At 100 to finish without bonking bad I do need some calories. I don't even need drink all that much either. My guess is cycling on the low end of the HR scale keeps me going longer. I have road charity rides where groups of faster riders and younger go out fast and furious. I finish with them because they stop and take breaks. They are 20-30 years younger and can out do me in a race for sure but if it goes on long enough I might close the gap.
> > > Deacon mark
> > Mark, you have a big low rev engine. If you don’t have to eat during a 3-4 hr ride you are burning fat efficient or you ride at a low intensity.
> > On my 76 km ride last Friday my average hr was 142 bpm, average intensity. I’m 65 yo. I have a small high rev engine. Didn’t had to eat but I did. Stopped at a bakery for a short 10 minutes break because I like pastry and it is off season so speed doesn’t matter. It was too cold and foggy anyway. People differ, nothing to worry about. I always say to people to start riding with a hrm and and couple the numbers you see to how you feel. For that you have to go over the limit from time to time.
> I have the Garmin matched to my wheel and crank configuration and it does show red meaning it has found it. Yet yesterday it wasn't showing the RPM. Can you suggest a reason for that? Is there something I have to do for the Garmin to understand that I am riding Bike 1 when the only bike on the computer is 1?

From an earlier discussion I understand that you have a Garmin Edge 800. The user interface is so much different from the newer edges that I downloaded the manual. As I understand it you have to press the power button to get the status screen. On that screen you can choose the bike you want. From the manual I read that you can define 3 bike profiles. During coupling of a sensor you have to assign this sensor to a bike profile. This is different than the more recent Garmin models. From the manual I understand you have to use the GSC10 speed and candence sensor. The newer Garmin speed and cadence sensors don’t work. Did you check the batteries and if the sensor is aligned correctly?

Lou

On Monday, January 17, 2022 at 10:34:26 AM UTC-8, Lou Holtman wrote:
> On Monday, January 17, 2022 at 5:28:48 PM UTC+1, Tom Kunich wrote:
> > On Sunday, January 16, 2022 at 2:37:29 PM UTC-8, Lou Holtman wrote:
> > > On Sunday, January 16, 2022 at 11:11:23 PM UTC+1, deaco...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > On Saturday, January 8, 2022 at 11:34:33 AM UTC-6, Rolf Mantel wrote:
> > > > > Hi,
> > > > >
> > > > > Black Friday brought me a sports watch and a heavy cold, staying in bed
> > > > > for a few days, and forcing me to sleep more than 10 hours per night
> > > > > until after christmas.
> > > > >
> > > > > The new sports watch told me I am far too fit for my age (VO2 Max at 47
> > > > > on the first walk after several weeks of weakness and 50 by now).
> > > > >
> > > > > So I had to try out that watch feature of a "HRM-driving training plan",
> > > > > picking the longest posiible plan 30 weeks with three trainings a week.
> > > > >
> > > > > The first training said "90 minute cycle ride aerobic zone 2" which made
> > > > > me learn that there are lost of differences between the names of heart
> > > > > rate zones afterwards (the watch counts warm-up as zone 1, so zone 2
> > > > > should have been just below 120).
> > > > > I went 90 minutes "normal commuting" speed which my watch counts as zone
> > > > > 3 and then had to get home another just over 10km.
> > > > > https://www.strava.com/activities/6466423490
> > > > >
> > > > > Next problem is that Strava and Garmin seem to have quite different
> > > > > ideas on which zones start and end where:
> > > > > At age 50, I have a resting heart rate of 45 and I'm supposed to have a
> > > > > max HR of 170 by age.
> > > > > Strava seems to place the "edge" to anaerobic at 148 while Garmin places
> > > > > it at 138 (I guess for a Garmin training plan I need to stick to Garmin
> > > > > terminology).
> > > > > Anyway, while I can sustain efforts around 135 easile for an hour or
> > > > > more, a sprint bringing me to the 140-145 range exhasuts my legs after
> > > > > three minutes, making 5-minute intervals in those areas a meaningful
> > > > > excercise.
> > > > >
> > > > > Do you lot have any feedback on this?
> > > > >
> > > > > Rolf
> > > > Rolf I have some real data that might be of interest. I use a garmin HR monitor the new duo and it is great. The new garmin watches I got about 6 months ago are a 645 and 935. My background is I am a life long distance runner and cyclist. These days I cycle as I have runner's dystonia so running can be a challenge. My lifetime running mileage is at least 85,000 miles and my cycling mileage has not caught that yet but hopefully in a few years. My resting HR is 38-40. Sometimes sleeping my HR drops to 35. I am not a particularly fast runner my best marathon is 3 hours and 6 minutes and my fastest mile ever ran only 5:41 at age 27.
> > > >
> > > > Well I am 60 now and my garmin says my VO2 is 40. I don't think it is accurate for the running because due to my dystonia I cannot sustain running more than about 400 meters withouth have to regroup my stride. It has nothing to do with being out of shape it just that my legs get messed up and muscles fire wrong. I have to stop and walk a few steps or even 200 meters then go at it again. This is because the muscles in the legs tighten up and will not relax to allow proper stride.
> > > >
> > > > On a bike it is a different story. I can ride like no issues at all and go at it full tilt. My problem is I cannot really get my HR up to what Garmin and Strava consider a high zone. On a typical hard 50 mile ride I might average HR might get to 120 but many times 115. The maximum I can get my HR is the maybe 145 and by then I am wiped out. I can however sustain long periods at 135 just like you. Today on the trainer inside I went 22 miles in 69 minutes with HR average 127. That is pretty high by my standards but only once did I get to 143. At that point I could not produce any more energy. For me to get to my theoretical max HR I would need to go to 160. I have not seen 160 in maybe 2 years and that was on a mile climb up a cat 4 hill. I was ready to bailout and fall over on the bike I was not sure I could dismount properly.
> > > >
> > > > My guess is that the low resting HR suggest the higher Max I should have, I don't really. Running at top speed I can regularly get my HR to go above 140 but not sure how much more I can. On the bike above 140 is a killer. It is certainly anaerobic for myself. These watches deal with mostly average situations and mine might not be average. One thing I can do that most cyclist cannot is I must be able to keep my glycogen stores better than most. I don't need to stop and eat or eat as I ride easily for 75 mile rides. At 100 to finish without bonking bad I do need some calories. I don't even need drink all that much either. My guess is cycling on the low end of the HR scale keeps me going longer. I have road charity rides where groups of faster riders and younger go out fast and furious. I finish with them because they stop and take breaks. They are 20-30 years younger and can out do me in a race for sure but if it goes on long enough I might close the gap.
> > > > Deacon mark
> > > Mark, you have a big low rev engine. If you don’t have to eat during a 3-4 hr ride you are burning fat efficient or you ride at a low intensity.
> > > On my 76 km ride last Friday my average hr was 142 bpm, average intensity. I’m 65 yo. I have a small high rev engine. Didn’t had to eat but I did. Stopped at a bakery for a short 10 minutes break because I like pastry and it is off season so speed doesn’t matter. It was too cold and foggy anyway. People differ, nothing to worry about. I always say to people to start riding with a hrm and and couple the numbers you see to how you feel. For that you have to go over the limit from time to time..
> > I have the Garmin matched to my wheel and crank configuration and it does show red meaning it has found it. Yet yesterday it wasn't showing the RPM. Can you suggest a reason for that? Is there something I have to do for the Garmin to understand that I am riding Bike 1 when the only bike on the computer is 1?
> From an earlier discussion I understand that you have a Garmin Edge 800. The user interface is so much different from the newer edges that I downloaded the manual. As I understand it you have to press the power button to get the status screen. On that screen you can choose the bike you want. From the manual I read that you can define 3 bike profiles. During coupling of a sensor you have to assign this sensor to a bike profile. This is different than the more recent Garmin models. From the manual I understand you have to use the GSC10 speed and candence sensor. The newer Garmin speed and cadence sensors don’t work. Did you check the batteries and if the sensor is aligned correctly?

OK, going down into the garage and working on it I discovered that the cadence end of the counter was a lot more distance sensitive than the RPM detector. So that is all working now. That seems a bit odd since the crank magnet is much larger than the spoke magnet.

On Sunday, January 16, 2022 at 5:11:23 PM UTC-5, deaco...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, January 8, 2022 at 11:34:33 AM UTC-6, Rolf Mantel wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Black Friday brought me a sports watch and a heavy cold, staying in bed
> > for a few days, and forcing me to sleep more than 10 hours per night
> > until after christmas.
> >
> > The new sports watch told me I am far too fit for my age (VO2 Max at 47
> > on the first walk after several weeks of weakness and 50 by now).
> >
> > So I had to try out that watch feature of a "HRM-driving training plan",
> > picking the longest posiible plan 30 weeks with three trainings a week.
> >
> > The first training said "90 minute cycle ride aerobic zone 2" which made
> > me learn that there are lost of differences between the names of heart
> > rate zones afterwards (the watch counts warm-up as zone 1, so zone 2
> > should have been just below 120).
> > I went 90 minutes "normal commuting" speed which my watch counts as zone
> > 3 and then had to get home another just over 10km.
> > https://www.strava.com/activities/6466423490
> >
> > Next problem is that Strava and Garmin seem to have quite different
> > ideas on which zones start and end where:
> > At age 50, I have a resting heart rate of 45 and I'm supposed to have a
> > max HR of 170 by age.
> > Strava seems to place the "edge" to anaerobic at 148 while Garmin places
> > it at 138 (I guess for a Garmin training plan I need to stick to Garmin
> > terminology).
> > Anyway, while I can sustain efforts around 135 easile for an hour or
> > more, a sprint bringing me to the 140-145 range exhasuts my legs after
> > three minutes, making 5-minute intervals in those areas a meaningful
> > excercise.
> >
> > Do you lot have any feedback on this?
> >
> > Rolf
> Rolf I have some real data that might be of interest. I use a garmin HR monitor the new duo and it is great. The new garmin watches I got about 6 months ago are a 645 and 935. My background is I am a life long distance runner and cyclist. These days I cycle as I have runner's dystonia so running can be a challenge. My lifetime running mileage is at least 85,000 miles and my cycling mileage has not caught that yet but hopefully in a few years. My resting HR is 38-40. Sometimes sleeping my HR drops to 35. I am not a particularly fast runner my best marathon is 3 hours and 6 minutes and my fastest mile ever ran only 5:41 at age 27.
>
> Well I am 60 now and my garmin says my VO2 is 40. I don't think it is accurate for the running because due to my dystonia I cannot sustain running more than about 400 meters withouth have to regroup my stride. It has nothing to do with being out of shape it just that my legs get messed up and muscles fire wrong. I have to stop and walk a few steps or even 200 meters then go at it again. This is because the muscles in the legs tighten up and will not relax to allow proper stride.
>
> On a bike it is a different story. I can ride like no issues at all and go at it full tilt. My problem is I cannot really get my HR up to what Garmin and Strava consider a high zone. On a typical hard 50 mile ride I might average HR might get to 120 but many times 115. The maximum I can get my HR is the maybe 145 and by then I am wiped out. I can however sustain long periods at 135 just like you. Today on the trainer inside I went 22 miles in 69 minutes with HR average 127. That is pretty high by my standards but only once did I get to 143. At that point I could not produce any more energy. For me to get to my theoretical max HR I would need to go to 160. I have not seen 160 in maybe 2 years and that was on a mile climb up a cat 4 hill. I was ready to bailout and fall over on the bike I was not sure I could dismount properly.
>
> My guess is that the low resting HR suggest the higher Max I should have, I don't really.
> Running at top speed I can regularly get my HR to go above 140 but not sure how much more I can.
> On the bike above 140 is a killer.

A low resting heart rate is a good indicator of fitness, but doesn't have any correlation to max HR. My resting HR is around 45, but as I noted previously I have an insanely high max HR. I'll be 60 this year, but last summer at the regional crit championships I hit 200 and averaged 170. At 140 I'm barely breathing hard. This doesn't mean I'm any stronger or faster than the next guy, just that I have a high heart rate. I hve a couple of racing buddies in a similar situation.

> It is certainly anaerobic for myself. These watches deal with mostly average situations and mine might not be average.
> One thing I can do that most cyclist cannot is I must be able to keep my glycogen stores better than most.
> I don't need to stop and eat or eat as I ride easily for 75 mile rides. At 100 to finish without bonking bad I do need
> some calories. I don't even need drink all that much either. My guess is cycling on the low end of the HR scale keeps me going longer.

My guess is that all those years of long distance running trained you to use fat stores as a fuel source over glycogen. As long as you keep your metabolism on the "fat burning" zone, you won't draw on your glycogen stores. There has been a lot of research and literature in that area. Here's a good article by Hunter Allen, a world-renown coach and exercise physiologist. https://www.trainingpeaks.com/blog/maximize-your-ability-to-burn-fat-as-fuel-by-hunt/

Going out hard will tend to use glycogen as the primary source of fuel, and as you probably already know once your glycogen stores are depleted you 'bonk'. By teaching your body to use fat as the primary fuel source, you reserve your glycogen for later in the ride.

> I have road charity rides where groups of faster riders and younger go out fast and furious. I finish with them because they stop and take breaks. They are 20-30 years younger and can out do me in a race for sure but if it goes on long enough I might close the gap.
> Deacon mark