Heart rate and cycling...

Zulu

So I took up cycling for my commute. 26 Km per day. I've been doing it since October.
I'm seeing a small drop in my weight, which is nice, but I'm not really seeing any huge difference in my time (I'd be expecting this to drop) or my fitness (I'd be expecting it to become easier).
So I got a heart rate monitor as I figured a new gadget would sort out all of this.

In short, according to this gizmo,
44% of my time is spent in "speed/pwr" ie rate over 160 bpm.
37% is spent anerobic,
4% aerobic,
9 % fat burn,
and 12% warm up.

So fantastic, right? It's telling me that I'm spending 81% of my time really working hard. So I should be seeing results...

So I do some research, and I see that really, I'm doing it wrong. I should be taking my time and spending more time in the aerobic/fat burn stage.

Is this right? Is going easier the better way to do it?
I'm confused.

I'd appreciate anyones time to cut through the jargon, and explain it to me in simple terms.

Many thanks in advance...

Zillah

Don't focus on weight loss when it comes to exercise. Working out is good for your cardiovascular health and appearance (builds muscle). The more intense the exercise the better an impact it has on your health. I would not deliberately reduce my pace for the sake of optimising calorie burn. It would make a trivial difference anyway. Hurray, you burned 12 extra calories today by adjusting your heart rate zone slightly!

Weight is mostly a factor of your diet. If you're not losing weight at the rate you want then you should reduce your calorie intake. Easier said than done for some, but it's where the issue lies.

Zulu

Thanks for replying.

So keep going as hard as I can then?
Shouldn't my time be getting better?

ted1

Zulu wrote: »

Thanks for replying.

So keep going as hard as I can then?
Shouldn't my time be getting better?

What's your average speed? On titres where's there's traffic lights it can be hard to improve speed

Zillah

Zulu wrote: »

Shouldn't my time be getting better?

It should, if you're really pushing yourself. Are you literally no faster than Day 1?

Zulu

most of my route is cycle lane thankfully (about 2/3 of it).
Average speed is 23 kmph.

ted1

Zulu wrote: »

most of my route is cycle lane thankfully (about 2/3 of it).
Average speed is 23 kmph.

What type of bike? If you on flat cycle lane with no lights on s road bike you should be averaging about 30odd kph

Zillah

ted1 wrote: »

What type of bike? If you on flat cycle lane with no lights on s road bike you should be averaging about 30odd kph

What an odd thing to say. Everyone will be slower or faster depending on their fitness level.

ted1

Zillah wrote: »

What an odd thing to say. Everyone will be slower or faster depending on their fitness level.

That's the average he should be aiming for on a road bike on a straight. And is quite attainable. On a heavier bike with fat tyres it would be much less

The Davestator

ted1 wrote: »

What type of bike? If you on flat cycle lane with no lights on s road bike you should be averaging about 30odd kph

30 odd is a bit high in fairness!

Actual average of most cyclists is 27kph in my experience.

As a indication, 30 odd (35) would result in a close to 5 hour ironman bike split which most dont come close to.

Zulu

So heart rate be damned. 30kpmh is the goal?

Alf Veedersane

Zulu wrote: »

So heart rate be damned. 30kpmh is the goal?

The goal is to improve. Forget about a magic number. Just build on what you can do. It will feel easier. And your average will increase accordingly.

Mellor

Zulu wrote: »

In short, according to this gizmo,
44% of my time is spent in "speed/pwr" ie rate over 160 bpm.
37% is spent anerobic,
4% aerobic,
9 % fat burn,
and 12% warm up.

My fitbit has 3 zones fat burn from 50-70%, cardio 70-85%, and peak 85% plus. Most advanced systems use 6 zones. The 4 zones above is probably a happy medium.

How that work it out those zones? That's more important that the names. It's not really clear what's anaerobic vrs power would be.

So I do some research, and I see that really, I'm doing it wrong. I should be taking my time and spending more time in the aerobic/fat burn stage.

Should be in that zone based on what?
Different zones have different training effects.

ted1 wrote: »

That's the average he should be aiming for on a road bike on a straight. And is quite attainable. On a heavier bike with fat tyres it would be much less

That's a ridiculous generalization.
Like saying everyone should be aiming for a double bodyweight HB squat, or a sub 20min 5km

ford2600

Mellor wrote: »

That's a ridiculous generalization.

30 odd was the best bit.

Keeping everything else the same(on hoods, flat cycle with clinchers etc), and just varying speed from 30km-35km increases power from 183W to 274W for an 80kg rider on a 9kg bike.

http://bikecalculator.com/wattsMetric.html

OP just ride your bike, enjoy it. Forget about the numbers data etc.