|Aerobic vs. Subaerobic||tuffnick|
Jan 27, 2002 1:48 PM
|Is there a difference in effectiveness of say 3 hours at aerobic 130+ so approx 65% of max hr as opposed to in the 120s so approx 60% of max hr? Often times I do an endurance ride on rollers or a stationary bike for 3 hours and the first hour is aerobic then it drops off.
|Not enough to worry about! (nm)||allervite|
Jan 28, 2002 12:57 PM
|First let me commend you on...||Kyle|
Jan 28, 2002 1:30 PM
|being able to stay on a trainer for 3 hours. I've never known anyone with that kind of discipline.
A couple of comments:
I assume you're pretty fit, so it's possible that 65% of your max (depending on how you calculated it) is kind of low for an aerobic ride. My aerobic zone (based on my LT and Joe Friel's chart) is closer to 75% of my max. You should be a little out of breath, but not so much so that you can't have a reasonable conversation.
My second comment is that you must be slowing down over the course of your session. A phenomenon called cardiac drift should actually increase your HR over time at a constant level of effort. This would suggest that at the end of your ride, you're not really working very hard at all.
While there are certainly benefits to long (very) slow distance, you might experiment with increasing your effort and if necessary, shortening your duration. I tend to try to set my power output (speed, if you're on rollers) to a level that my average HR over the sesson is in the middle of my aerobic zone.