While I did see an increase in both MAP and FTP, I was a little disappointed the increase in MAP was less % wise than FTP. MAP < 3% FTP just short of 7%. My relationship of MAP to FTP has always been around 1.2:1.
I felt like I gave it everything thing I had during the RAMP section. I would say if anything I just couldn’t keep going at the high heart rate. I believe I maxed out at over 180. Of course this heart rate made the range for the constrained section higher. I was pretty much spent at the end of 20 minutes. I’m not sure I had much of anything left in the tank.
I guess time will tell if I can perform at the new figures. The first workout I did with the new figures was Igniter and I struggled maintaining the high cadence during the last 3 or 4 minutes of the step up portion.
If it matters, I am 60. I was wondering if this might have some impact on my maximum aerobic capacity.
Not sure if it was a heart rate monitor glitch or not, but strive.ai showed a 30 sec rate of 183, a 1 minute rate of 179 and a 2 minute rate of 173. I don’t remember how SYSTM calculates cTHR, but it calculated 167. This figure was up 18. I do know this figure was used during the constrained section. Given I was able to complete the constrained section, although with some difficulty, I was wondering if this might explain the difference in relative improvement.
Hmmm. That 183 has me wondering as that is above, well above, theoricical maximum for somebody your age. For example, I know my heart rate monitor is acting up if I see a heart rate > 170 anywhere on any test (I do HRV daily and I’ve seen 400s there). What I would do is a regular ride like Revolver and see what my rate peaks at. Also make DOUBLY sure the ‘pads’ are wet when doing this (Holy Water is NOT recommended on dry pads as it literally can eat through them).
In thinking about the results, I’m more inclined to accept the MAP figure as it was a measure to physical failure. The FTP is influenced by the heart rate during the MAP. Assuming the high heart rate during MAP was a glitch, the range for the constrained section was overstated. Contrary to the words of the storyline, I don’t believe I had more to give. It was a struggle to complete the 20 minutes. I think I’ll set the FTP based on the ratio to MAP from previous testing.
Theoretical maximum? If you’re referring to the formula 220-age, that’s coarse empirical representation of the average over a very large sample. Individuals can and very likely will differ from average, and the difference can be significant. I can only hit my max in extremely tough competitive situations, like crits and hill climbs, and then only for seconds. I can never hit it in training or solo rides, regardless of how hard I try. It occurs well into a ride and is not a momentary spurious spike in the data. I believe most really don’t know what their max is because it’s so hard to hit. I don’t have a good idea of what my current max is because I haven’t been in a situation where I can hit it for a few years now. I think SYSTM is good in that it doesn’t base zones on some max HR, but rather on lesser heart rates achieved during specific testing.
Have you been tested? I was for an obvious heart condition. The calculated heart rate for me is 165. It’s interesting when you get the docs involved! I’ve set my Garmin to this value as for some reason it wants to use this to calculate what zone my efforts are in vice using the calculated cTHR.
I have a resting heart rate that would be classified as braky. My cardiologist loves that it stays pretty much steady. If I get anywhere near 55, I know I’m either sick or way overtrained.
If you’re asking me, yes. Of course periodic EKGs, and 2 years ago had a treadmill stress test and an echocardiogram. Came out swimmingly. That old HR formula is kinda like BMI, too general and simplistic to be accurate for any individual. My max HR might be high judging by it, but within the healthy range with no arrhythmias. My sedentary HR is ~50. Perhaps TMI, but last time I got a colonoscopy I was lying on the table getting monitors and the IV hooked up and the doc said, “Whoa, you must be an athlete,” as my HR was ~47. I said nah, just like to ride my bike.
Gave me a laugh. When they used ‘Twilight Sleep’ on me for the old scope, about nine minutes into the procedure the NA asked me to breathe. All of the alarms were going off and I was totally ignorant of them.
As to the range of heart rates, they are individual. BTW, my situation was found through a CT Scan. What followed would have made GVA proud. Two stress tests, an echo, and wearing a monitor for a month (with the ensuing mess that went with the actual device literally sliding off my chest). I was cleared and now am being ‘monitored’. The bottom line here is if your gut tells you something is wrong, follow it. Pester your medical team until they do what is needed. BTW, the office EKG after the fall and after the CT showed an issue that is common to all athletes, but the PCP followed her intuition and sent me to the scan.
In the medical area, I’ve found having a low resting heart rate more problematic than having a high one. It’s earned me trips to the cardiologist. My resting heart rate is around 40. I think it’s partially genetic and partially fitness. The only doctor who didn’t seem alarmed was the anesthesiologist for my back surgery. I think he was a runner.
The PCP did diagnose me with bradycardia via an annual EKG. It’s been diagnosed for about 3 years, but has changed very little: The cardiologist did an EKG and an echo and cleared me. He didn’t seem too concerned.
For the record, was thinking about this thread today when I finished my HM and HR hit 184bpm, so I guess my max is higher than I thought, too. Who knew?
AFAIK, bradycardia is a resting HR under 60, so I don’t know what being diagnosed with it means. I don’t thing it’s a problem in itself but might be indicative of some underlying pathology. No doctor I’ve had has raised an eyebrow at my resting HR below 50. It might have come up but I’d simply mention my riding.
)
