Heart rate based / endurance training - am I doing it right?

[thenortherner]

Apologies, I've already put this in the Health forum but I think it's probably more suited to here...

I completed an Ironman 70.3 last month. It was my first triathlon and I managed it in just over 6 hours. My training was a bit hit and miss. I did get a lot of help with following a specific program which was based on heart rate. At the very start of the year I paid for some tests on the static bike to measure my heart rate zones, lactic threshold, Vo2 max etc. Although things have changed since then in that I'm much fitter, the results are as below:

Zone 1 - 110 - 128
Zone 2 - 128 - 148
Zone 3 - 148 - 160
Zone 4 - 160 - 173
Zone 5 - 173 - max

No doubt these are slightly improved now given how long ago it was and the training I've done all year. My Garmin has recorded my max heart rate at 192 rather than the 182 during the test.

I didn't stick to the heart rate based training as strictly as I could have and now want to start again. I reckon over training has been leaving me feeling knackered and has lead to a sore back, which has caused me to take a few weeks break recently.

Anyhow, I've started up again and this time without any specific guidance or help from anyone, using the rule that endurance based training should be 180 BPM - age (30). So exercise should be carried out with an HR of 150 or less for the next 16-20 weeks to see the benefit.

The idea being that over time as my fitness increases, I'll be able to go faster for longer at the same heart rate as I started the training at.

After only a short time I think I'm possibly seeing the benefits already - please see the picture below. What do you reckon? I started up again after a few weeks off which might be why the first runs are so poor.

Also, am I doing it right? Is it OK to experience some very high heart rates, as I have with some of the bike rides, so long as I'm averaging 150 or below for the duration of the ride?

Thanks,

[Daveyraveygravey]

I'm trying HR training myself - about 4 weeks ago Bikeradar ran an article about how most cyclists who aren't on a structured programme train in a way that isn't efficient, and it seemed to describe me. I always decide how far I want to go and where, but that was it. I might hit some segments I know hard, or try and climb a hill as fast as I can, but nothing more planned than that. As a result, the hard efforts probably aren't hard enough to really improve things, and slow easy efforts usually have a full on bit in them, so they weren't helping much either.
Your zones seem pretty similar to mine, and I am trying to work out in each zone if not once a week, once every 10 days. A lot of my miles now are in z1 and z2; I just set a HR alarm for the upper limit. I do find it very hard when out on the road no stay below; some not very steep hills cause it to go off. I've noticed some days are better than others too. The hard rides in z3-5 are giving me some variety and I think I am seeing the benefit.

[Dammit]

Hr is useful but for the bike power is better- I use HR for running still, and training peaks has an rTSS value calculated from HR.

Grab a copy bof training and racing with a power meter and have a read.

[anonymous-user]

find the pdf of "Hadds guide to distance training" which is fairly easy to find online and have a read, its based around marathon training but the principles are still applicable and its still relevant despite being around for a while.