-3

By training close to the MAF heart rate but still below it, you need less training time to get the same TSS compared to zone 1. For example, doubling the power output means you need one fourth the duration.

Why do professional cyclists still prefer lots of zone 1 training when recovery rides don't need to be long? In polarized training, there's lots of zone 1 training.

MAF heart rate Subtract your age from 180 to get the heart rate. Train between that heart rate and 10 beats below. The closer to the calculated heart rate, the quicker the aerobic base will be developed https://philmaffetone.com/180-formula/

Brian
  • 1,043
  • 1
  • 14
  • 21
  • 4
    Premise of the Q is flawed - Sport science at elite level is far more advanced than the coach saying "Head out and do lots of zone 1 training" – mattnz Mar 03 '18 at 21:02
  • I'm unfamiliar with this training method. Can you edit in a brief rundown on how/why it works for you ? I'm guessing its much more intense and shorter efforts? – Criggie Mar 04 '18 at 01:10
  • @Criggie You train below the 180 minus age HR. It can be slow depending on your aerobic fitness. If it's low, you might even have to walk. I've commuted with the method but have to wait to see my speed or power at my MAF HR decrease. – Brian Mar 04 '18 at 03:31
  • 5
    The "220-age" max heart rate theory is myth and any methods use of it (or a variation) shows the sports science behind the method is stuck in the early 1990's – mattnz Mar 04 '18 at 03:38
  • @mattnz 180 minus age wasn't a typo. It's the max HR at which we're aerobic. – Brian Mar 04 '18 at 03:58
  • 2
    So it means I'd be dawdling along at 138 bpm? That's a casual cruise with no particular effort. Long and gentle rides are good for building endurance but they don't help with power or high sustained efforts like a climb. Perhaps that's why its not more common? – Criggie Mar 04 '18 at 04:38
  • 3
    @Han-Lin I rent normally suggest Wikipedia for medical information but the section on maximum heart rate has a useful discussion on the different calculations, and also on why they're all of limited use in individual training – Chris H Mar 04 '18 at 07:19
  • 1
    By the way, the entire philmaffetone.com looks like classic quackery, complete with selling supplements. The redeeming part is that they don't claim to treat actual sicknesses or injuries. – ojs Mar 04 '18 at 10:17
  • 4
    @Han-Lin You say you've used this method but, in comments elsewhere on the site, you say you plateaued at an average 15km/h on your bike. The pro peloton averages nearly three times that figure (e.g., the last-place finisher in last year's Tour de France rode 3450km in a few minutes under 91 hours, which is 37.9km/h). Does that answer your question? – David Richerby Mar 04 '18 at 12:30
  • 3
    I believe the original question was less silly than the edited question. Pro cyclists don't use maffetone method because training plans are nowadays based in power rather than heart rate. Heart rate can be affected by heat or even food and other factors. There's also a lag in heart rate response. You can burst a 10 second max effort and your heart rate will not show – gaurwraith Mar 04 '18 at 14:31
  • 1
    Even if heart rate was a reliable indicator for power, training exclusively at very low effort does not develop speed or endurance. – ojs Mar 04 '18 at 18:06
  • @DavidRicherby How fast can they do it on bike boulevards? – Brian Mar 04 '18 at 23:33
  • 1
    @Criggie If your aerobic fitness is low then yes but once you're fit you should find that your power or speed is higher at 138 BPM. – Brian Mar 05 '18 at 00:22
  • 1
    @Han-Lin If your speed is limited by the places you cycle, then you’re wasting your time with all this talk of power meters and training methods. My experience of bicycle boulevards in Berkeley, CA, was that speeds of around 20-25km/h were reasonable, though I wasn’t measuring my speed, and the speed limit for motor vehicles on those roads would presumably be 20mph (30km/h). Perhaps they’re different where you are. – David Richerby Mar 05 '18 at 16:56

1 Answers1

5

Because it does not work.

First: As discussed in comments, the assumption that maximum aerobic heart rate can be calculated as 180 - age is wrong and heart rate is not very good indicator of power output.

Second: Training only at low intensity does not develop speed or endurance. All research that I have read concludes that for non-athletes the largest gains come from high intensity interval training. For professional athletes, their low intensity training is harder than amateurs' maximum effort, but high intensity exercise either as training or regular racing is still required.

ojs
  • 21,985
  • 5
  • 41
  • 83