Estimating trainer 'effort above the flat' by heart rate + cadence A question popped into my head after yesterday's trainer ride. 

First, a long-winded preamble.

As I pointed out in this question, I usually set the trainer up so that a 5l cask of wine just moves the pedal from horizontal in 'top' (48:14). 

In that configuration, my average HR will stay in the 130s at a cadence of 80 in 'top'. 

If I ride on the road, my HR seldom gets above 130 except on hills or if I crank up the cadence to 100+ in top (on the flat): I am loath to ride at any decent speed on the road because I am usually surrounded by people of median IQ driving 1500kg+ steel boxes - and I don't trust any of them not to kill me (assuming they're not actually trying to).

Yesterday I didn't have a full cask anywhere (I've been off the grog for six weeks, on a bet), so I just cranked it up until I couldn't move the pedal using my hand when seated next to the trainer.

This provided 'ample' resistance, to say the least: 2 minutes in, my HR was in the 140s although my cadence was only in the low 70s - and not in top gear, either - the average speed for the workout was 22km/hr. 

Doing 'sprints' (15sec bursts at a cadence of > 130 in top) was almost the end of me.

Half an hour later, my HRM said I'd exerted ~500kcal over 10.7km, with an average HR of 148 and a peak HR of 166. The kcal count is about right for workouts where I do more sprints, and at a significantly higher average speed (i.e., a distance travelled of ~17km, reflected by an average cadence of 80 in top: cadence maps directly to speed via gear ratio).

So if I expressed this as "what is X in 48:X, to get that distance at a cadence of 80", the answer is "a little over 22". In other words, riding on (roughly) the 4th-highest gear, my HR was 10% higher than it usually is riding at the same cadence in top. 

That got me thinking: rather than work out the effort above my 'wine cask' resistance level, I ought to be able to work out the 'effort above flat' implied by the level of resistance I dial in, by


finding decent-sized bit of car-free flat (say, a 1km loop somewhere); 
going around it at a series of stable cadences (in top) and HRs (say, cadences of 80 and 100; HRs of 120, 130, and 140) each for a few minutes.


For each cadence, I would then know my 'steady state' HR on the flat (it will stabilise after a few minutes); for each HR, I will know what speed/cadence on the flat is consistent with that HR.

So if my HR is, say 10% higher (on average across the workout) than it was on the flat 'benchmark' for the same cadence in the same gear, I would chalk that one up as being '10% above the flat'. (I'm not pretending that's a 10% incline, or even a 10 degree incline; just that it's objectively 10% 'harder'). 

I realise that over time it would be expected that performance would get better, so there would be a need to periodically re-assess the 'flat' performance.

So finally the question: has this sort of analysis already been done and put up on the web somewhere? 

I've googled terms I think might yield results, but haven't found a sausage. It seems to me that performance-metrics boffins would probably have solved this already (assuming it's an issue that has benefit for performance monitoring, which I reckon it does) so my search terms are probably a bit pants.
Might I enquire your age?   This answer will be a bit vague without that, but you can work it out backwards.

The rule of thumb says that your max heart rate is 220-(your age in years)    I'm 40, so 180 would be my "100%" heart rate.   

This table shows cycling


This chart shows the "zones"



So your 130 BPM is likely to be the "weight loss zone" for under 50 or the Aerobic zone for over 50.

Back to cycling, my "tempo" zone would be 70-80% of 180, so 126-144 BPM.

Here's a short ride from last week - heart rate was above 160 for at least half, and a peak of 173.  That translates to higher threshhold and into VO2, which is pretty good, giving speeds of mid 30km/h to a peak of 42 km/h.  https://www.strava.com/activities/757787829/analysis



So to summarise - 130 BPM is a good "endurance" workout.   You'd need to be doing that speed for a couple hours, and frankly that's boring on a trainer.

If you're dead against training on the road, try riding at a velodrome or some other kind of off-road track.  An athletic track may work, or around the local park?   

If you can work a decent climb into your trip then that will be excellent exercise.  Use a tool like strava to measure your gains, cos it never feels faster.