# Is a heart rate needed for training w/ Power?



## 853

I'm getting a powermeter and it does not come w/ a chest strap....Is this something I should also purchase to make my training more effective?

thanks


----------



## iliveonnitro

It's cool to see where your HR correlates at certain power levels and how HR drift works. After awhile, though, you'll probably just drop the HR monitor completely. I wore it for the first 2 weeks before giving it up. It feels nice to breathe again.


----------



## 2Slo4U

Yes, typically a heart rate is needed for any sort of training......read the thread title and hopefully you will get the joke!


----------



## Guest

It is nice to go without it, it's sometimes interesting for analysis later. I think it can sometimes help to see if you became dehydrated or didn't fuel properly. Initially I think its good to help see some of the differences in training using a powermeter vs. the HRM.


----------



## Andrea138

iliveonnitro said:


> It's cool to see where your HR correlates at certain power levels and how HR drift works. After awhile, though, you'll probably just drop the HR monitor completely. I wore it for the first 2 weeks before giving it up. It feels nice to breathe again.


This!


----------



## Alex_Simmons/RST

I only found my HR strap for the first time in several years the other day. Put it on for a couple of efforts on the ergo and it did what it always does. AFAIC, it's just an unecessary annoyance to wear a strap if you are recording power.


----------



## aussiebullet

Nitro lasted 13 days longer than me. My 1st ride with p/meter l tossed hr stap in the closet
never to see the light of day again, went from 220w to 315w in 2 years so obviously not affecting my training.


----------



## iliveonnitro

aussiebullet said:


> Nitro lasted 13 days longer than me. My 1st ride with p/meter l tossed hr stap in the closet
> never to see the light of day again, went from 220w to 315w in 2 years so obviously not affecting my training.


I admire you, though. My HR monitor strap was on for 13 days too long!


----------



## mf9point8

I like as many metrics as I can get... HR can be useful to view decoupling during efforts among othr things.


----------



## geneseo

i find heart rate to be completely demotivating. watching my power creep up each week is great and motivates me to work harder. seeing that my heart rate is at the limit puts negative thoughts into my mind with regard to how long i can hold it til i blow up. not to mention when doing blocks of hard efforts. heart rate on those latter days just doesn't get up very high.

if you were to relate this to weightlifting, the power you produce is like how much weight you can lift. that's all that matters. i could care less what my heart rate was while i am lifting weights.

what is important is to get a sense of what a certain amount of power feels like (RPE). This becomes important in a race where you ride at the front or put in an attack and need to hold an effort and don't have your powermeter. otherwise you just need to ride at whatever pace is being dictated to you by the rest of the field.


----------



## StillRiding

Both a HR monitor and a powermeter can provide information, which if analyzed and acted upon correctly, can help you to improve performance. However, neither can predict the future. Some days you can maintain your nominal FTP for an hour, some days 5 minutes is the limit. Experience is probably the best ways to predict which day will be which. Develop a good internal sense of how much work you're doing and how much more you can do. Neither a HR monitor or a powermeter will help you much in any race except a time trial or a long solo break away (when's the last time that happened?).


----------



## Alex_Simmons/RST

StillRiding said:


> Both a HR monitor and a powermeter can provide information, which if analyzed and acted upon correctly, can help you to improve performance. However, neither can predict the future. Some days you can maintain your nominal FTP for an hour, some days 5 minutes is the limit. Experience is probably the best ways to predict which day will be which. Develop a good internal sense of how much work you're doing and how much more you can do. Neither a HR monitor or a powermeter will help you much in any race except a time trial or a long solo break away (when's the last time that happened?).


Actually the Permormance Manager and other similar impulse-response models using power meter data do provide a degree of predictability for performance.

For example, there is data showing a good correlation between personal best performances over various durations and a rider's Training Stress Balance.

What can HR tell you that will impact your training?

I've used a PM to assist me during a long solo (then 2 man break) to win a criterium.


----------



## StillRiding

Alex_Simmons/RST said:


> I've used a PM to assist me during a long solo (then 2 man break) to win a criterium.


A power meter can only show one thing. The power you are currently putting out. That one thing is also a function of the calibration and consistency of the power meter. All software performance models do nothing more than make educated guesses based on what good (or bad) data they're fed. The real question is how accurate are the guesses and how appropriate they are to any particular rider. My feeling is that although the information provided by analyzing power meter data is helpful, it's no more helpful than the perceptions of an experienced rider.

I once won a long solo 2 man break in a criterium without using a power meter.


----------



## Alex_Simmons/RST

StillRiding said:


> A power meter can only show one thing. The power you are currently putting out. That one thing is also a function of the calibration and consistency of the power meter. All software performance models do nothing more than make educated guesses based on what good (or bad) data they're fed. The real question is how accurate are the guesses and how appropriate they are to any particular rider. My feeling is that although the information provided by analyzing power meter data is helpful, it's no more helpful than the perceptions of an experienced rider.
> 
> I once won a long solo 2 man break in a criterium without using a power meter.


Bringing meter calibration into it is just a straw man argument. Of course we want accurate, calibrated meters and good data. But when you have good data, the analysis is very very helpful in putting objectivity into assessing trends in performance versus a given training impulse.

All a HRM does is show your HR.

You haven't answered my question. - What does knowing your HR do that will impact your training to improve performance?

I never said a PM was needed to win a race. Just demonstrating that it can and has been used that way (given you alluded to it not being of much help).


----------



## velogirl

Actually, I find HR as a useful training tool for lower-intensity workouts. My clients have both prescribed power zones and HR zones. Power is most accurate with shorter intensity efforts (when it takes HR longer to respons). But I find HR to be a more efficient training tool when prescribing lower-intensity efforts. Depending on terrain, power can vary wildly, but HR will remain pretty constant. If an athlete gets too hung up on hitting a specific power zone in training at lower intensities, s/he might not be training effictively.


----------



## geneseo

velogirl said:


> Actually, I find HR as a useful training tool for lower-intensity workouts. My clients have both prescribed power zones and HR zones. Power is most accurate with shorter intensity efforts (when it takes HR longer to respons). But I find HR to be a more efficient training tool when prescribing lower-intensity efforts. Depending on terrain, power can vary wildly, but HR will remain pretty constant. If an athlete gets too hung up on hitting a specific power zone in training at lower intensities, s/he might not be training effictively.



you can make the same argument for HR at lower levels. after a block of training, hr is suppressed. If you try to hold a certain hr range in this situation, you may be riding way too hard. i've seen it personally where at 140 bpm when rested i will ride at 220 watts, but after a block of hard days it's more like 240-250. rpe is high, power is high, but hr is low. even for lower intensity, i always find power to be more reliable and accurate.


----------



## jibboo

Having HR can be useful. I once spotted an upcoming flu by noting an unusual HR. Normally my HR zones and power zones correspond pretty close... like the pic on the right Getting sick on the left... went for a ride, and felt crappy.


----------



## iliveonnitro

jibboo said:


> Having HR can be useful. I once spotted an upcoming flu by noting an unusual HR. Normally my HR zones and power zones correspond pretty close... like the pic on the right Getting sick on the left... went for a ride, and felt crappy.


Getting the flu off that? That's one hell of a diagnosis. You should be a fortune teller.


----------



## jibboo

iliveonnitro said:


> Getting the flu off that? That's one hell of a diagnosis. You should be a fortune teller.


Nah, not like that. I felt like crap on the ride. Afterward, I noticed the anomoly. Within about 36 hours the first symptom (fever) showed up. 

Either way, a sudden change is a signal that _something_ could be up. It won't tell you what something is, though. I've also seen a split like that from stress.


----------



## newmexrb1

I'm not an exercise physiologist, but cannot imagine why one would leave HR out of the equation. What a priceless opportunity to track output vs HR. The cheapo Timex HMR is unnoticeable. In the old days some of the Polar monitor chest bands were uncomfortable, I see a replaceable sticky in the future, no band just a little gel and adhesive. Replaceable sticky electrodes/


----------



## natethomas2000

This isn't exactly on topic, but for those of you with power meters, do you race with them, or is it strictly a training device?


----------



## velogirl

Dare I mention that I also use RPE with my clients? Power, HR, and RPE are all useful tools if an athlete knows what to do with them.

Lorri


----------



## Shaggybx

velogirl said:


> Dare I mention that I also use RPE with my clients? Power, HR, and RPE are all useful tools if an athlete knows what to do with them.
> 
> Lorri


Quick side note
Cool website Lori 
Lots of good stuff.
Good luck:thumbsup:


----------



## bikerecker

While measuring power is great, measuring actual physiological response to training is more important. I can't imagine trying to optimize training with Power and not wanting to correlate to other training parameters.


----------



## Alex_Simmons/RST

bikerecker said:


> While measuring power is great, measuring actual physiological response to training is more important.


Such as?

What could be more (physiologically) important than the power you can sustain over various durations?


----------



## StillRiding

Alex_Simmons/RST said:


> Such as?
> 
> What could be more (physiologically) important than the power you can sustain over various durations?


A power meter only reads power at a specific point in time. It does not predict the future nor is it aware of the physical, physiological and emotional factors that frequently skew performance predictions. The power you output last week is not necessarily the power you will be able to generate tomorrow. Power data is a good reference, but experience, heart rate info, and being well in touch with what your body is telling you are better predictors of what power an you can sustain over any given duration on any given day.


----------



## bikerecker

StillRiding said:


> A power meter only reads power at a specific point in time. It does not predict the future nor is it aware of the physical, physiological and emotional factors that frequently skew performance predictions. The power you output last week is not necessarily the power you will be able to generate tomorrow. Power data is a good reference, but experience, heart rate info, and being well in touch with what your body is telling you are better predictors of what power an you can sustain over any given duration on any given day.


 Pretty much nails it. When looking at power, you are seeing mechanical/physical value, specifically, the rate at which energy is being applied to doing work. More important is how your physiology is responding to the work load. The only real physiological parameter you can measure while riding is your HR. 
If I could only measure one of the two values, it would be HR. And power measurement without HR is like reading half of a complex novel while ignoring the rest, and hoping your assumptions about the basic trends of the novel's narrative are indicative of the outcome.


----------



## Guest

bikerecker said:


> More important is how your physiology is responding to the work load. The only real physiological parameter you can measure while riding is your HR.
> If I could only measure one of the two values, it would be HR.


I often wear my HRM however the problem with your argument is that your heart's response to a given work load varies greatly due to numerous factors that make it difficult to use as a basis for evaluating performance. Achieving your highest avg HR on a given course for example tells you very little about the quality of your performance in relation to previous efforts, the same could be said for a lower than normal avg.


----------



## asgelle

bikerecker said:


> The only real physiological parameter you can measure while riding is your HR.


That's demonstrably not true. Respiration rate and core body temperature have been measured, and though I'm not sure of it, I believe perspiration rate has been too. So my question is now that you know about them, will you start measuring them as well?


----------



## aussiebullet

StillRiding said:


> A power meter only reads power at a specific point in time. It does not predict the future nor is it aware of the physical, physiological and emotional factors that frequently skew performance predictions. The power you output last week is not necessarily the power you will be able to generate tomorrow. Power data is a good reference, but experience, heart rate info, and being well in touch with what your body is telling you are better predictors of what power an you can sustain over any given duration on any given day.


H/R is a red hering  Power and P/E all the way baby :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

You are right though my power is never the same from week to week or month to month it continually rises at some duration or another from 5sec to 4hrs  

In racing the goal is be the first across the line or have the fastest ITT time, not to have the highest or lowest H/R or to boast about the biggest power numbers after the race.
All things being equal; equipment, position (cda), and tactics it is a matter of more power = more speed,
it is that simple period. 
Training on flats with strong winds is near impossible to gauge with P/E, stopwatch or H/R, anyone who trains with a PM knows this for a fact! This is just one example.


----------



## newmexrb1

asgelle said:


> That's demonstrably not true. Respiration rate and core body temperature have been measured, and though I'm not sure of it, I believe perspiration rate has been too. So my question is now that you know about them, will you start measuring them as well?


 Hell, why stop there--on the fly O2 consumption can also be done with Douglas Bags. Only about 5 grand.


----------



## Alex_Simmons/RST

bikerecker said:


> Pretty much nails it. When looking at power, you are seeing mechanical/physical value, specifically, the rate at which energy is being applied to doing work. More important is how your physiology is responding to the work load.


That's certainly true but HR is a relatively poor indicator of how your physiology is responding the work load, since it is also responding to a multitude of other factors. Just because it's easy to measure, doesn't mean it's all that important. It's just an indicator of cardiac strain, that's all.


bikerecker said:


> If I could only measure one of the two values, it would be HR. And power measurement without HR is like reading half of a complex novel while ignoring the rest, and hoping your assumptions about the basic trends of the novel's narrative are indicative of the outcome.


HR is an indicator of cardiac strain. It is not a measure of fitness.

So it's use is very narrow and limited to being an indicator of intensity, albeit a sub-optimal one for a multitude of reasons.

Since that is the only sensible use of HR, and if you have power, which is a far superior means of guaging intensity, then HR is essentially redundant.


----------



## newmexrb1

I don't get that they are redundant at all. Someone outputting 400 watts at a HR of 110 is presumably far more fit than someone whose HR is 200 for the same wattage. Like the poster before, the two together would seem to provide complementary information re training trends. I must be missing something but I would love to know that my cardiovascular fitness is increasing along with raw power output which may be obtained under considerably different metabolic circumstances--say fully aerobic vs at threshold, or while incurring O2 debt big time. Its(HR) easy data to grab, and cannot see where it detracts from the experience. Psychological fatigue is notorious for its untrustworthiness for gauging effort. 

As a for instance, So if I'm dieing on the vine while only getting 85 percent of customary power output, I believe it would be useful to know whether the HR is 70 percent or 98% of max. Sure there are confounding HR that influence HR. Not sure ignoring these and what your body is telling you by HR is the best approach. Some types of training, maybe... 

Again no claims to any advanced knowledge of exercise physiology, just trying to get a better handle on the issues.


----------



## Alex_Simmons/RST

newmexrb1 said:


> I don't get that they are redundant at all. Someone outputting 400 watts at a HR of 110 is presumably far more fit than someone whose HR is 200 for the same wattage. Like the poster before, the two together would seem to provide complementary information re training trends. I must be missing something but I would love to know that my cardiovascular fitness is increasing along with raw power output which may be obtained under considerably different metabolic circumstances--say fully aerobic vs at threshold, or while incurring O2 debt big time. Its(HR) easy data to grab, and cannot see where it detracts from the experience. Psychological fatigue is notorious for its untrustworthiness for gauging effort.
> 
> As a for instance, So if I'm dieing on the vine while only getting 85 percent of customary power output, I believe it would be useful to know whether the HR is 70 percent or 98% of max. Sure there are confounding HR that influence HR. Not sure ignoring these and what your body is telling you by HR is the best approach. Some types of training, maybe...
> 
> Again no claims to any advanced knowledge of exercise physiology, just trying to get a better handle on the issues.


Well if you are dying on the vine at 85% of customary power, then what exactly does knowing your HR tell you about your physiology beyond what you can tell by having a power-PE right out of synch? (A: not much)

And more importantly, what changes will you make to your training based on such (HR) information?


----------



## Alex_Simmons/RST

newmexrb1 said:


> I don't get that they are redundant at all. Someone outputting 400 watts at a HR of 110 is presumably far more fit than someone whose HR is 200 for the same wattage.


While I doubt the 110bpm at 400W example, but there in lies the problem - you are assuming that HR is a measure of fitness. In the above example, we don't know the rider's respective body mass, nor their respective HR maximal values, so who can tell who is actually fitter? If the 110bpm guy cracks at 410-W and the other guy can go to 420W, then who is fitter?

It matter not what your HR does. What matters is the power you can sustain over a given duration.

Here's an example: My HR in a racing situation is automatically higher than it typically is when training at the same power. Am I suddenly less fit because I happen to be in a race, since my power to HR ratio is different? Of course not.

Sometimes I might do efforts and my HR is lower (or higher) than normal but I'm still banging out the power OK. Am I less fit or more fit? A: You can't say, because there are too many other influences on HR for it to be all that useful as a guide to fitness.

What matters (from a fitness standpoint) is the power you can actually produce for a given duration.


----------



## iliveonnitro

Alex_Simmons/RST said:


> While I doubt the 110bpm at 400W example, but there in lies the problem - you are assuming that HR is a measure of fitness. In the above example, we don't know the rider's respective body mass, nor their respective HR maximal values, so who can tell who is actually fitter? If the 110bpm guy cracks at 410-W and the other guy can go to 420W, then who is fitter?
> 
> It matter not what your HR does. What matters is the power you can sustain over a given duration.
> 
> Here's an example: My HR in a racing situation is automatically higher than it typically is when training at the same power. Am I suddenly less fit because I happen to be in a race, since my power to HR ratio is different? Of course not.
> 
> Sometimes I might do efforts and my HR is lower (or higher) than normal but I'm still banging out the power OK. Am I less fit or more fit? A: You can't say, because there are too many other influences on HR for it to be all that useful as a guide to fitness.
> 
> What matters (from a fitness standpoint) is the power you can actually produce for a given duration.


What if the 400W guy weighs 350lbs and needs that power to just stay upright (at 110bpm)? Sounds like the only plausible scenario for that situation.


----------



## newmexrb1

To answer the one question, I might be inclined to believe I'm overtraining for one, and doing more damage than good. It may be the flu--but like others I was mystified by the post showing evidence of same. 

It may amount to two entirely different situations--I'm thinking of someone like myself who is completely unfit and embarking on something like a 2 year program to gain a high level of fitness versus someone who is already there and trying to make small, incremental gains in preparation for racing. In the latter case, HR may not add much; in the former, it would seem to be worthwhile, perhaps more important than power.


----------



## Alex_Simmons/RST

newmexrb1 said:


> It may amount to two entirely different situations--I'm thinking of someone like myself who is completely unfit and embarking on something like a 2 year program to gain a high level of fitness versus someone who is already there and trying to make small, incremental gains in preparation for racing. In the latter case, HR may not add much; in the former, it would seem to be worthwhile, *but still less useful and less *important than power.


Fixed your post for you 


For training/racing purposes, HR never trumps power. Ever.


----------



## StillRiding

When sprinting in a race should I ride as hard as my power meter says I can or as hard as I can? If it's a crowded bunch sprint should I even risk looking at my power meter?

When I'm being dropped should I ride at the pace my power meter predicts I can sustain or should I try to go as hard as necessary to hang on?

In training, when I'm doing intervals of various durations should I ride as hard as I can for the duration of the interval or should I let my power meter guide me?

Should I attempt to develop an internal sense of what efforts I can sustain or should I rely on my power meter and heart monitor?

Should I spend $1500 for a power meter or for a nice set of carbon wheels?


----------



## Alex_Simmons/RST

StillRiding said:


> When sprinting in a race should I ride as hard as my power meter says I can or as hard as I can? If it's a crowded bunch sprint should I even risk looking at my power meter?
> 
> When I'm being dropped should I ride at the pace my power meter predicts I can sustain or should I try to go as hard as necessary to hang on?
> 
> In training, when I'm doing intervals of various durations should I ride as hard as I can for the duration of the interval or should I let my power meter guide me?
> 
> Should I attempt to develop an internal sense of what efforts I can sustain or should I rely on my power meter and heart monitor?
> 
> Should I spend $1500 for a power meter or for a nice set of carbon wheels?


Mostly red herring arguments since none are about the difference between using a PM vs a HRM - which is the topic of debate.

Nevertheless....



StillRiding said:


> When sprinting in a race should I ride as hard as my power meter says I can or as hard as I can? If it's a crowded bunch sprint should I even risk looking at my power meter?


No one looks at a meter when sprinting, that's just dumb. But no one here is suggesting you should. This is a red herring, i.e. irrelevant to the discussion.



StillRiding said:


> When I'm being dropped should I ride at the pace my power meter predicts I can sustain or should I try to go as hard as necessary to hang on?


Your power meter doesn't predict anything, you do. What you choose to do tactically and strategically is up to you. Another red herring.



StillRiding said:


> In training, when I'm doing intervals of various durations should I ride as hard as I can for the duration of the interval or should I let my power meter guide me?


Actually this is a pretty important one, as riding as hard as you can for an interval can often be quite counter productive in training (it depends a lot on the type and nature of the interval), so the answer is a combination of yes, no or maybe. If you don't understand why, then you need to learn some more about effective training methodology.



StillRiding said:


> Should I attempt to develop an internal sense of what efforts I can sustain or should I rely on my power meter and heart monitor?


Another red herring. You present it like it's an either / or sceanrio, when in fact it is the combination of power and RPE that is intensely valuable information.



StillRiding said:


> Should I spend $1500 for a power meter or for a nice set of carbon wheels?


The power meter, no doubt about it. But then you don't need to spend $1500 to get a really good (new) power meter. Less than half that actually. Or build one into a nice carbon wheel if you really think that's important.


----------



## newmexrb1

Alex_Simmons/RST said:


> While I doubt the 110bpm at 400W example, but there in lies the problem - you are assuming that HR is a measure of fitness. In the above example, we don't know the rider's respective body mass, nor their respective HR maximal values, so who can tell who is actually fitter? If the 110bpm guy cracks at 410-W and the other guy can go to 420W, then who is fitter?
> 
> It matter not what your HR does. What matters is the power you can sustain over a given duration.
> 
> Here's an example: My HR in a racing situation is automatically higher than it typically is when training at the same power. Am I suddenly less fit because I happen to be in a race, since my power to HR ratio is different? Of course not.
> 
> Sometimes I might do efforts and my HR is lower (or higher) than normal but I'm still banging out the power OK. Am I less fit or more fit? A: You can't say, because there are too many other influences on HR for it to be all that useful as a guide to fitness.
> 
> What matters (from a fitness standpoint) is the power you can actually produce for a given duration.


I am not doubting the last statement--we are talking past each other. I only suggest that the path to getting to such a point is made smoother by knowing heart rate--comparing apples to apples on a week to week, month by month basis. You are talking above about a charged situation where eppy levels are going to be higher and jack the resting HR up. No you have not become less fit. But I'd be surprised if 30 minutes into it for a given level of output that the HR's would be dissimilar. Maybe a few BPM owing to the stress of racing.

My assumption is that HR will ultimately be more a function of blood chemistry, pressure and the variables which drive HR via the autonomic nervous system_ for a given individual at a particular time._ Over time as the body undergoes physiological adaptation to exercise that number is anything but static. Obviously stroke volume is going to increase with conditioning as will O2 extraction ratio. This seems obvious--and so tracking your ability to sustain a given output vs HR would seem to be one very rewarding and useful parameter. Moreover as I mentioned, if there is a sudden apparent decrease in efficiency which cannot be ascribed to short term situational effects like too much caffeine or racing nerves, may be a hint that you are overtraining. 

Maybe guys like Arnie Baker and Joe Friel are completely clueless which is what you seem to be suggesting in your ardor to be slavishly devoted to a single variable. Even if that variable is "rubber meeting the road,:" this seems like a narrow viewpoint, and not certain how many physicians would suggest their out of shape patients throw caution to the wind and blindly pursue watts as the sole item of relevance in their pursuit of greater fitness. Seems like a setup for failure if not disaster.


----------



## Alex_Simmons/RST

newmexrb1 said:


> I am not doubting the last statement--we are talking past each other. I only suggest that the path to getting to such a point is made smoother by knowing heart rate--comparing apples to apples on a week to week, month by month basis. You are talking above about a charged situation where eppy levels are going to be higher and jack the resting HR up. No you have not become less fit. But I'd be surprised if 30 minutes into it for a given level of output that the HR's would be dissimilar. Maybe a few BPM owing to the stress of racing.
> 
> My assumption is that HR will ultimately be more a function of blood chemistry, pressure and the variables which drive HR via the autonomic nervous system_ for a given individual at a particular time._ Over time as the body undergoes physiological adaptation to exercise that number is anything but static. Obviously stroke volume is going to increase with conditioning as will O2 extraction ratio. This seems obvious--and so tracking your ability to sustain a given output vs HR would seem to be one very rewarding and useful parameter. Moreover as I mentioned, if there is a sudden apparent decrease in efficiency which cannot be ascribed to short term situational effects like too much caffeine or racing nerves, may be a hint that you are overtraining.
> 
> Maybe guys like Arnie Baker and Joe Friel are completely clueless which is what you seem to be suggesting in your ardor to be slavishly devoted to a single variable. Even if that variable is "rubber meeting the road,:" this seems like a narrow viewpoint, and not certain how many physicians would suggest their out of shape patients throw caution to the wind and blindly pursue watts as the sole item of relevance in their pursuit of greater fitness. Seems like a setup for failure if not disaster.


I only suggest that the path to getting to such a point is made smoother by knowing *power *-- comparing apples to apples on a week to week, month by month basis.

Talking about patient rehab is another red herring. This is a cycling training forum. 

But then I have pretty strong personal experience of using power in a rehab sceanrio having had my leg amputated just over two years ago. I couldn't give a rats arse about my HR but that 100W for 10-min on a trainer the first time I tried to pedal again was precious. I've since set an all time PB max aerobic power test result (410W). Still don't care what my HR is/does. It's simply not all that relevant.

I also coach some clients that have or are current rehabbing from cancer and/or serious injury - and the power meter data is intensely useful, in many more ways that HR could ever be.

And yep, Friel does occasionally talk bunkum (not all the time of course).


----------



## iktome

The one thing that seems most obvious in these discussions is that the people discounting training with power have either never used a power meter, or never used one in a systematic way with any understanding of what it tells you.

And that's not even considering the apparent misunderstanding of what heart rate represents.


----------



## newmexrb1

iktome said:


> The one thing that seems most obvious in these discussions is that the people discounting training with power have either never used a power meter, or never used one in a systematic way with any understanding of what it tells you.
> 
> And that's not even considering the apparent misunderstanding of what heart rate represents.


Hope that is not aimed at me--if so a misrepresentation. I'm all for getting both, and being a data geek, would never dispense with potentially useful data when it is accurate and so bloody easy to obtain. :thumbsup: 

Then again that may be just a holdover from being an MD/PhD student in a dept of physiology. Last i heard HR is largely a function of O2 demand. Why I would want to know such is simply beyond me--data lust I guess.


----------



## StillRiding

iktome said:


> The one thing that seems most obvious in these discussions is that the people discounting training with power have either never used a power meter, or never used one in a systematic way with any understanding of what it tells you.
> 
> And that's not even considering the apparent misunderstanding of what heart rate represents.


What may seem obvious is not always true. I've used both a power meter and a heart monitor for the past four years, and prior to that I used a heart monitor since the mid 80's. 

I can only comment on what works in training and racing for me (and maybe a few other riders I've trained with and advised), but here's the bottom line:

All the gadgets and monitors and analysis and coaching in the world are no substitute for plain old hard work and a reasonable amount of talent. Developing your own personal internal monitors is way more important than the reliance on external sources of information. Finally, the one most important ingredient to success is motivation. Without it nothing can be achieved. For some, power meters, heart monitors, analysis software and coaches can provide that extra motivation they need. For others it's not necessary.

Personally, after four years of working with power meters, I've removed the last one from my bike and sold it on eBay. I came to the conclusion that it really wasn't telling me anything that I didn't already know and that fixating on power was just distracting me from other things. Heart monitors are not much better, but at least they're cheaper and not as troublesome to install and keep accurate. Your mileage may vary, but I'm guessing that 99.44% of those reading this are not riding at a level that really justifies the use of a power meter as other than an expensive toy (which may provide some motivation until the new wears off).

Flame retardant suit on.


----------



## Alex_Simmons/RST

StillRiding said:


> I came to the conclusion that it really wasn't telling me anything that I didn't already know and that fixating on power was just distracting me from other things.


But there is so much more to it than "fixating on power".... which makes it sound like you trained _by _power, rather than _with _power (in the sense of using it to its potential to elicit greater performance than you may otherwise have done).


----------



## StillRiding

I'll have to consult my semanticist in order to hash out the with/by thing, but, the problem training _with_ or _by _power is that power in itself is such an insignificant part of the training equation as to almost qualify as a distraction. 

During the period I used power meters (I tried all of the big three), I discovered that they couldn't tell me how much to rest, which days to go hard, or how much distance was enough. They also didn't tell me what and how much to eat or how much to sleep. They didn't take into account my age, my weight, illnesses, other stress in my life. They didn't know what I planned to do next week or next month or next year. All they did was read power at one instant in time and record it. They didn't even know that it was raining and cold outside. They were fun toys but they were expensive, required a lot of maintenance and frequently caused me to question calibration and accuracy (all three of them). OTOH, they did make it possible for other people to write books about them and sell analysis software, so I guess there was some financial benefit elsewhere.


----------



## iliveonnitro

StillRiding said:


> I'll have to consult my semanticist in order to hash out the with/by thing, but, the problem training _with_ or _by _power is that power in itself is such an insignificant part of the training equation as to almost qualify as a distraction.
> 
> During the period I used power meters (I tried all of the big three), I discovered that they couldn't tell me how much to rest, which days to go hard, or how much distance was enough. They also didn't tell me what and how much to eat or how much to sleep. They didn't take into account my age, my weight, illnesses, other stress in my life. They didn't know what I planned to do next week or next month or next year. All they did was read power at one instant in time and record it. They didn't even know that it was raining and cold outside. They were fun toys but they were expensive, required a lot of maintenance and frequently caused me to question calibration and accuracy (all three of them). OTOH, they did make it possible for other people to write books about them and sell analysis software, so I guess there was some financial benefit elsewhere.


The distinction isn't difficult, though. Training _by_ power implies a sense of being owned _by _the device rather than working _with _the device. We aren't implying that one should be a slave to the powermeter -- especially any more than to a heart rate monitor as some here suggest.

As for maintenance, I have no idea what you are talking about. I own a 2007 PT SL and I replace batteries 2x per year, which is almost exactly the same as when I owned a crappy front wheel-sensor computer. It's never had to be sent back for any work.

Insignificant is hardly the word for such a powerful tool and the powerful software that accompanies it. It sounds like you should have consulted a coach to utilize something you didn't fully understand. This is less of a problem with the powermeter and more of a problem along the lines of "EEBKAC."


----------



## Alex_Simmons/RST

StillRiding said:


> I'll have to consult my semanticist in order to hash out the with/by thing, but, the problem training _with_ or _by _power is that power in itself is such an insignificant part of the training equation as to almost qualify as a distraction.
> 
> During the period I used power meters (I tried all of the big three), I discovered that they couldn't tell me how much to rest, which days to go hard, or how much distance was enough. They also didn't tell me what and how much to eat or how much to sleep. They didn't take into account my age, my weight, illnesses, other stress in my life. They didn't know what I planned to do next week or next month or next year. All they did was read power at one instant in time and record it. They didn't even know that it was raining and cold outside. They were fun toys but they were expensive, required a lot of maintenance and frequently caused me to question calibration and accuracy (all three of them). OTOH, they did make it possible for other people to write books about them and sell analysis software, so I guess there was some financial benefit elsewhere.


Then it is definitely clear that you didn't really understand how to work with the power meter to gain the benefits from all the data it provides.

One of the most power applications is the management of overall workload through various times of the season, tracking the patterns in training and identifying good and bad form, and then being able to replicate those same patterns. The impulse-response model of training when coupled with power meter data is an exceptionally powerful tool. 

My power meter tells me exactly how much energy I've used, so it's pretty handy at helping me determine how much to eat.

If you do timed events of any kind, then it is a powerful aid in analysing pacing effectiveness. 

Pre course pacing strategy can be worked on. 

And it is an especially effective tool for doing aerodynamic assessment and choosing the right position and the right equipment.

Through various forms of testing with the meter one can assess with greater precision exactly what sort of training focus is needed at given times.

The list goes on....


----------



## Alex_Simmons/RST

Alex_Simmons/RST said:


> Then it is definitely clear that you didn't really understand how to work with the power meter to gain the benefits from all the data it provides.
> 
> One of the most power applications is the management of overall workload through various times of the season, tracking the patterns in training and identifying good and bad form, and then being able to replicate those same patterns. The impulse-response model of training when coupled with power meter data is an exceptionally powerful tool.
> 
> My power meter tells me exactly how much energy I've used, so it's pretty handy at helping me determine how much to eat.
> 
> If you do timed events of any kind, then it is a powerful aid in analysing pacing effectiveness.
> 
> Pre course pacing strategy can be worked on.
> 
> And it is an especially effective tool for doing aerodynamic assessment and choosing the right position and the right equipment.
> 
> Through various forms of testing with the meter one can assess with greater precision exactly what sort of training focus is needed at given times.
> 
> The list goes on....


And I shoud add - none of the above can be done (or done with anywhere near the effectiveness) with a HR monitor.


----------



## kreuzberg

Well this all has been very interesting to read. I have to agree that HR can be really screwy and doesn't tell you anything, esp. during short intervals.
So I kind of want to throw my heart rate strap away for next year and only look at my power meter. Would that be acceptable?


----------



## StillRiding

Using a power meter to improve your cycling performance is sort of like using a calculator to improve your bank balance. Both may be helpful tracking tools, but neither address or affect the important issues that actually cause changes.

While a heart rate monitor may fall in the same category as a power meter, it is a little different. Anyone who has used a power meter knows that a rider's ability to output a specific power for a specific duration varies considerably from day to day and week to week. A power meter can't predict what days will be which, but intelligent riders can guess, and a heart rate monitor can help. Experience is an even better tool for predictions in this department. The heart rate monitor has the additional advantages of being far less expensive, easy to use on any bike and to transfer from bike to bike and from sport to sport, and being way less prone to calibration errors and installation hassles. 

The bottom line: going faster is the goal, and you can tell if you're going faster with a speedometer, or, if you really want to get technical, a watch. You don't need a power meter to tell you in what place you finished.

Finally, let me admit that I've probably been at this too long (see profile). I have a very finely calibrated sense of what I can and can not do on a bike, mostly gained through hard experience. I personally found that a power meter, and even a heart rate monitor didn't tell me things that I didn't already know. For four seasons I kept careful records, did all the analysis and planning prescribed by the power gurus and found that it really wasn't that helpful. In some cases it actually detracted from the enjoyment I get from riding and competing. Every one is different with different experience levels, different expectations, and different motivation. Each person reading this is unique and may or may not find that a power meter or heart monitor contribute to the quality of training and racing.


----------



## asgelle

StillRiding said:


> Anyone who has used a power meter knows that a rider's ability to output a specific power for a specific duration varies considerably from day to day and week to week. A power meter can't predict what days will be which, ...


As Alex has mentioned, this is demonstrably not true*. You would think the number of riders at the very highest level of the sport who use power data in just this way would be enough to put an end to this myth. Now the fact that a given user might not have the knowledge to apply the information in this way is another matter altogether.


*I guess since it's the data from the power meter that allows prediction of performance, you're technically correct,


----------



## Pasta Cervelo

training with power is head and shoulders above HR or RE (Perceived Exertion). That being said there are instances where HR and PE are helpful in getting the full picture.

Not that everyone needs that level of data but if you are into it enough to drop big bucks on a Power meter why would you want to skip the others?


----------



## Alex_Simmons/RST

Pasta Cervelo said:


> training with power is head and shoulders above HR or RE (Perceived Exertion). That being said there are instances where HR and PE are helpful in getting the full picture.
> 
> Not that everyone needs that level of data but if you are into it enough to drop big bucks on a Power meter why would you want to skip the others?


Because when you have power, HR is at best redundant, at worse misleading. PE doesn't disappear in any case and is quite useful with power.

But if you need the HR info for your own peace of mind, well all power meters have HRMs built in anyway.


----------



## bikerecker

asgelle said:


> That's demonstrably not true. Respiration rate and core body temperature have been measured, and though I'm not sure of it, I believe perspiration rate has been too. So my question is now that you know about them, will you start measuring them as well?


there are no respiration or persperation monitors which can be used while racing or training on a bicycle. Regarding core temperature, you may measure it while you ride, if you like. HR is a much more important parameter with regard to response to training stimulus.


----------



## asgelle

bikerecker said:


> Regarding core temperature, you may measure it while you ride, if you like. HR is a much more important parameter with regard to response to training stimulus.


Why is heart rate more important than core temperature (as opposed to more convenient or more common)?


----------



## bikerecker

Alex_Simmons/RST said:


> That's certainly true but HR is a relatively poor indicator of how your physiology is responding the work load, since it is also responding to a multitude of other factors. Just because it's easy to measure, doesn't mean it's all that important. It's just an indicator of cardiac strain, that's all.
> 
> HR is an indicator of cardiac strain. It is not a measure of fitness.
> 
> So it's use is very narrow and limited to being an indicator of intensity, albeit a sub-optimal one for a multitude of reasons.
> 
> Since that is the only sensible use of HR, and if you have power, which is a far superior means of guaging intensity, then HR is essentially redundant.


Knowing how the body responds to differing loads (which are measured with a power meter) is essential (that is, it is the essence) to day to day planning of training and racing regimens. The reason HR varies in seeminly random ways is not because it is somehow an unreliable or unpredictable parameter, it is because the human body itself is unreliable and unpredictable. Response to training, in the long and short terms, can only be accurately measured with HR. When correlated with power, overall fitness, response to training stimuli, response to other stressors, and physiological adaptation can all be relatively accurately quantified. Power is a wonderful tool. Using power data without HR is an overly simplistic apporach to a very complex problem.


----------



## SwiftSolo

Alex_Simmons/RST said:


> Because when you have power, HR is at best redundant, at worse misleading. PE doesn't disappear in any case and is quite useful with power.
> 
> But if you need the HR info for your own peace of mind, well all power meters have HRMs built in anyway.


Alex,
Isn't average HR / time a relative measure of fitness over a given course--all other factors being equal? For example, if I repeatedly do the same out and back lap faster with the same heart rate in July than I could in June, is that not a measure of improved fitness? It seems to me that I notice this trend every season as I'm futher into training and has always been assumed to be a given. 

I'm just now getting my powertap (this week) but have been using HR monitors since 1987 and been recording ride HR data since the 305 first came out. I'm looking forward to learning this new approach (for me) to training.


----------



## bikerecker

Imagine a rider who can sustain 400W at 150 BPM for one hour.
Now, imagine the same rider, who, after a certain amount of training time and effort, can sustain 400 W for 140 BPM for one hour.

Now, imagine another exactly identical rider who has followed the same regimen, but who lacks the HR data.

Is the second rider as well informed as the first?


----------



## Alex_Simmons/RST

bikerecker said:


> Response to training, in the long and short terms, can only be accurately measured with HR.


Do you _really _believe that?


----------



## bikerecker

It's a hypothetical, though not rhetorical, question.
With a sefl-obvious answer.


----------



## Alex_Simmons/RST

SwiftSolo said:


> Alex,
> Isn't average HR / time a relative measure of fitness over a given course--all other factors being equal?


No.

Maximal power per kg for a given duration is a relative (and absolute) measure of fitness. 
HR is just an indicator of cardiac strain.


----------



## bikerecker

We are discussing the measurement of physiological paramters relevant to aerobic/cardiovascular conditioning. So HR is obviously more important. At least, it should be obvious.


----------



## Alex_Simmons/RST

bikerecker said:


> Imagine a rider who can sustain 400W at 150 BPM for one hour.
> Now, imagine the same rider, who, after a certain amount of training time and effort, can sustain 400 W for 140 BPM for one hour.
> 
> Now, imagine another exactly identical rider who has followed the same regimen, but who lacks the HR data.
> 
> Is the second rider as well informed as the first?


About their fitness and impact of training on performance? Then yes. Both have attained the same fitness level from their training. Since that's what matters, the HR information is redundant.

But I agree that one rider knows more about their HR than the other. So what? They're not any fitter as a result of knowing it.


----------



## bikerecker

"just and indicator of cardiac strain"?
Cardiovascular conditioning is the most important result of aerobic training.


----------



## Alex_Simmons/RST

bikerecker said:


> We are discussing the measurement of physiological paramters relevant to aerobic/cardiovascular conditioning. So HR is obviously more important. At least, it should be obvious.


What (from a relevant physiological parameter POV) could possibly be more important than knowing the amount of power produced per kg?

Let's see, it's more important than knowing a rider's:
- VO2max
- gross metabolic efficiency
- lactate threshold
- and yes, funny enough it's way way way more important than knowing a rider's HR!!


----------



## Alex_Simmons/RST

bikerecker said:


> "just and indicator of cardiac strain"?
> Cardiovascular conditioning is the most important result of aerobic training.


No it's not. Increased power output is.


----------



## bikerecker

The two riders are equally fit.
One is more aware than the other. He knows how his cardiovascular system has adapted to the training load. Thus he can alter his training to accomodate the new data. Over time, and with proper coaching, he will improve at a greater rate than the rider who does not have the complete data set.


----------



## bikerecker

Power comes from torque.
Torque comes from muscular exertion.
Muscular exertion is a result of a complex interaction between multiple systems.
The most important of which is the cardiovascular system.
So, to get to power output, one must go through cardiovascular conditioning.


----------



## asgelle

bikerecker said:


> The most important of which is the cardiovascular system.


What, beside your own word, is there to support that? Just refering to Alex's brief list, why is it more important than VO2max, gross metabolic efficiency, or lactate threshold?


----------



## bikerecker

There are multuple parameters which can be easily.cheaply.conveniently measured by a typical bicycle racer while riding his or her bike.
The simplest, easiest, and cheapest, is HR.
Next is power.

VO2 (not max, just VO2), LT, etc., can only be computed from data which is can only be gathered in a laboratory.

So from a reasonable, realistic viewpoint, we have only two ways of measuring response to exercise. Both are important. Used together, they can lead to a better informed traiing plan,

For day to day trending, HR is important for more than just measurement of relative gains and overall fitness. A power meter will tell you that your expensive, yet ill-informed coach's plan has put you into an overtrained state. After your power has plateaued.
A HR monitor will tell you this in real time.


----------



## Alex_Simmons/RST

bikerecker said:


> Power comes from torque.
> Torque comes from muscular exertion.
> Muscular exertion is a result of a complex interaction between multiple systems.
> The most important of which is the cardiovascular system.
> So, to get to power output, one must go through cardiovascular conditioning.


Of which the rate at which your heart beats is but one component in that complex system, yet you seem to attribute a far greater level of importance to it than all the other components of that system. Even more imprtant than the combined output of all the systems - i.e. power

Apart from the others I mentioned, what about mitochondral density? Or muscle fibre type makeup? Glycogen storage capacity?

Or back to the heart itself - what about stroke volume?


----------



## Alex_Simmons/RST

bikerecker said:


> There are multuple parameters which can be easily.cheaply.conveniently measured by a typical bicycle racer while riding his or her bike.
> The simplest, easiest, and cheapest, is HR.
> Next is power.


The cheapest measure of intensity is perceived exertion.
Speed/time is cheaper than HR measurement (and is a better guide to fitness than HR, e.g. time taken up a steepish hill climb).



bikerecker said:


> VO2 (not max, just VO2), LT, etc., can only be computed from data which is can only be gathered in a laboratory.
> 
> So from a reasonable, realistic viewpoint, we have only two ways of measuring response to exercise. Both are important. Used together, they can lead to a better informed traiing plan,


You are confusing indicators of intensity with indicators of fitness. They are not the same thing. 

HR is an indicator of intensity (as is power and PE). It's not as good as power or PE but it's still an indicator.

However power is also a measure of fitness. As are measurements of changes in VO2max and blood lactate responses (if done properly). HR and PE are not.



bikerecker said:


> For day to day trending, HR is important for more than just measurement of relative gains and overall fitness. A power meter will tell you that your expensive, yet ill-informed coach's plan has put you into an overtrained state. After your power has plateaued.
> A HR monitor will tell you this in real time.


Wow. This one takes the cake.

So a bad coach with power is a good coach using a HR meter? WTF? Talk about a red herring.

And, do tell, how can one know when training with an HRM that power has plateaued?

And exactly what would you define as a HR response that indicates such a state of overtraining (whatever you mean by that)?


----------



## iliveonnitro

bikerecker said:


> There are multuple parameters which can be easily.cheaply.conveniently measured by a typical bicycle racer while riding his or her bike.
> The simplest, easiest, and cheapest, is HR.
> Next is power.
> ...
> So from a reasonable, realistic viewpoint, we have only two ways of measuring response to exercise. Both are important.
> ...
> For day to day trending, HR is important for more than just measurement of relative gains and overall fitness. A power meter will tell you that your expensive, yet ill-informed coach's plan has put you into an overtrained state. After your power has plateaued.
> A HR monitor will tell you this in real time.


For some, simple/easy/cheap and speculative is secondary to useful. Yes HR is a response to exercise, but it is marginally useful, at best.

I've still yet to see how HR is an important (or even a) way to measure relative gains/overall fitness. I've also yet to see how HR can tell you something that power cannot.


----------



## kreuzberg

This is a little off-topic, but I train with power and hr, and in the last week my heart rate has been about ten beats higher for any given wattage. I'm in the middle of some base training (had a late start on training this year due to illness) and I have no idea why this has happened. Anyone have an answer? I don't think I'm overtrained because its mostly been low intensity and not very high volume.


----------



## cjd

Are you still sick at all? Taking any cold medicine with pseudo ephedrine in it? Have you been drinking any caffeine before your training? Have you been more excited/nervous for any reason for your recent rides? Have you tried a different HR monitor to see if it also registers higher bpm readings? Could be several explanations.


----------



## Fredrico

*Interesting discussion.*



iliveonnitro said:


> For some, simple/easy/cheap and speculative is secondary to useful. Yes HR is a response to exercise, but it is marginally useful, at best.
> 
> I've still yet to see how HR is an important (or even a) way to measure relative gains/overall fitness. I've also yet to see how HR can tell you something that power cannot.


Power tells you what level of energy you can sustain for a given length of time. Heartrate tells you how fit your body is to do the work. That's what fitness means, IMO.

Seems like everyone's hung up on power meters and could care less what they're going through trying to deliver this power. :shocked: Not listening to your heart rate will run you right into the ground. Talk about plateaus.

Bikerecker started trying to explain cardio fitness. I''ll pick up on it. There are two types of muscle fibers, fast twitch and slow twitch. The fast twitch use glycogen stored in them to deliver power on demand. They're trained by weight lifting, short, all out speed intervals and climbing. They adapt to the challenging work loads by getting bigger. Once they use up the glycogen, they have to back off to recover, restore glycogen, then they can go again. They can't efficiently metabolize oxygen. They're anaerobic.

The aerobic fibers are the slow twitch. They're infused with lots more capillaries that can deliver oxygen to the muscles, long skinnier fibers, that do the work, of course, along with the fast twitch. The difference is the slow twitch can metabolize oxygen efficiently. The slow twitch are trained by pedaling fast, maintaining a constant demand for fuel from the heart and lungs. They can go steady state for hours, entirely dependent on how much blood the heart can deliver. That's why heart rate is important as a measure of performance: it tells how hard the engine is working.

So obviously, if the guy above can deliver the same 400 watts after a year's training at 10 bpm lower heart rate, he's fitter. He can do the same work with less "strain" on his heart. He can do it longer, too. It also becomes possible to up the wattage: the heart will be able to take it. It can be trained to beat harder and deliver even more nutrients and oxygen to the muscles.

Seems like alot of you guys don't like HRMs because of variables that have to do with how much sleep you got the night before, whether you're recovered from the last big ride, but HRM is still a legitimate measure of how much power you're going to be able to generate today, but more importantly in a race, how long.. Pro's wear HRMs on stage races, to tell them when to go for it or hang with the bunch and conserve energy. If the HR stays high, its going to take more out of you than if it's lower. HR may not be a measure of power, but sure is a measure of ability to sustain that power over any period of time.

As far as endurance, heart rate measurements are a very useful training aid. You need endurance as well as power to do well in a race. Cycling is more an endurance sport than a power sport. Just ask Mark Cavendish. :thumbsup:


----------



## asgelle

Fredrico said:


> There are two types of muscle fibers, fast twitch and slow twitch.


That's where you lost me.


----------



## Guest

Seems like a lot of semantics and word mincing there Fredrico.

And I wish I could ask Cav but I can't, though it seems he likes his SRM pretty well.



Fredrico said:


> Just ask Mark Cavendish. :thumbsup:


----------



## kreuzberg

Fredrico said:


> So obviously, if the guy above can deliver the same 400 watts after a year's training at 10 bpm lower heart rate, he's fitter.


That's not how you tell he's fitter. You can tell he's fitter by the fact that he can now do 420 watts. So you don't need heart rate here.



Fredrico said:


> He can do the same work with less "strain" on his heart. He can do it longer, too. It also becomes possible to up the wattage: the heart will be able to take it. It can be trained to beat harder and deliver even more oxygen to the muscles.


Maybe he can do it longer. It depends how he trained. The heart also isn't trained to beat harder. You just contradicted yourself because first you said that the heart would beat at the same wattage for 10 bpm less, so if you up the power (I'm assuming you were saying) heart rate would go up too. That's not beating harder than it was before, though.


----------



## iliveonnitro

Fredrico said:


> Power tells you what level of energy you can sustain for a given length of time. Heartrate tells you how fit your body is to do the work. That's what fitness means, IMO.
> 
> Seems like everyone's hung up on power meters and could care less what they're going through trying to deliver this power. :shocked: Not listening to your heart rate will run you right into the ground. Talk about plateaus.


No, power tells you the level that you did sustain for a given effort, and give you a reasonable prediction of what you should be able to do. Heart rate doesn't tell anyone how fit their body is, as there is more than just the rate at which your heart beats that goes into how fit you are. Stroke volume, mitochondrial density, capillary density, plasma volume, etc, etc are parts of it. A beating heart does not tell you any of this. All it tells you is that your body might be working harder than normal, without accurately measuring it. Not listening to heart rate is no indication of running yourself into the ground. Not listening to your whole body, however, will run you into the ground.

You're close on fast vs slow twitch muscle fibers. In reality, there is a continuum of muscle fiber "types," and it is not just one or the other.

You are, for the most part, right in saying that if you can maintain a certain level of power at a lower HR, that you are more fit. But you still need power in that equation. Using heart rate alone, you cannot accurately quantify it.

But,



Fredrico said:


> HRM is still a legitimate measure of how much power you're going to be able to generate today


No, it isn't. A power meter is the only measure of how much power you're going to generate on a given day.


----------



## Alex_Simmons/RST

Fredrico said:


> Power tells you what level of energy you can sustain for a given length of time. Heartrate tells you how fit your body is to do the work. That's what fitness means, IMO.


Sentence 1: correct. You should have stopped there.
Sentence 2: incorrect.
Sentence 3. your conclusion, incorrect.



Fredrico said:
 

> Seems like everyone's hung up on power meters and could care less what they're going through trying to deliver this power. :shocked: Not listening to your heart rate will run you right into the ground. Talk about plateaus.


You really think that monitoring HR will prevent a training plateau and that monitoring power without HR will cause a training plateau? You really have no idea, do you?



Fredrico said:


> Bikerecker started trying to explain cardio fitness. I''ll pick up on it.


Not a particularly good place to start... but anyway



Fredrico said:


> That's why heart rate is important as a measure of performance: it tells how hard the engine is working.


No, it's an indicator of cardiac strain. Only a power meter can tell me how hard I am working.



Fredrico said:


> but HRM is still a legitimate measure of how much power you're going to be able to generate today, but more importantly in a race, how long..
> ....
> HR may not be a measure of power, but sure is a measure of ability to sustain that power over any period of time.


Not a chance. When riding a bike outdoors, overall there is a poor correlation between HR and power. The correlation improves a bit when riding in a controlled environment, like in a lab. But if you don't know that, then I can't help you.



Fredrico said:


> As far as endurance, heart rate measurements are a very useful training aid.


Well I have already said that the primary (actually really the only) useful function of HRMs is as an indicator of intensity. But if you have a power meter (and this thread is about whether to bother with HR when you have a power meter), then HR is redundant as power measurement is a far superior measure of intensity.



Fredrico said:


> You need endurance as well as power to do well in a race. Cycling is more an endurance sport than a power sport. Just ask Mark Cavendish. :thumbsup:


Well endurance _is_ the ability to sustain power, so that's kind of tautological. 

Perhaps what you meant to say was you need a superior level of aerobic fitness, as well as sufficient anaerobic work capacity and excellent neuromuscular power to win elite/Pro road race bunch sprints.



Fredrico said:


> You need endurance as well as power to do well in a race. Cycling is more an endurance sport than a power sport. Just ask Mark Cavendish. :thumbsup:


_Pithy Power Proverb: "It's an Aerobic sport, dammit" - Andy Coggan_


----------



## Fredrico

kreuzberg said:


> That's not how you tell he's fitter. You can tell he's fitter by the fact that he can now do 420 watts. So you don't need heart rate here.
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe he can do it longer. It depends how he trained. The heart also isn't trained to beat harder. You just contradicted yourself because first you said that the heart would beat at the same wattage for 10 bpm less, so if you up the power (I'm assuming you were saying) heart rate would go up too. That's not beating harder than it was before, though.


Yes it is. :shocked: I'm not contradicting myself. 

Sure, heartrate will go up increasing the effort form 400 watts to say, 420 watts, but if the heart could handle the lesser power last year at 150 bpm, it can handle the increased demand this year at 150 bpm.  You build up strength, power, and if you keep it up, the heart, lungs and cardio system adapt to handle the increased demands. How much work the muscles can do is measured by power meters in watts. How long you can sustain that power is entirely dependent on how hard the heart can work, how high the lactate threshold is (you can train that up too), blood volume per heartbeat, capillary size in the muscles, how much oxygen your lungs can process per minute, as well as pure muscle strength. The body responds to the challenges, man, all of it, not just the legs.

A badly trained athlete quickly goes into anaerobic. His heart rate zooms way up under stress, struggling to handle the work demand. He blows up. As he rides more, his heart gets stronger, is able to pump more blood per stroke, and can work at higher bpm for longer periods of time. Lactate threshold goes up, aerobic power also goes up, so the rider can work harder and go faster without having to slow down and recover all the time.

We're talking about two different things, power and endurance. Eddy Merckx said, "As speed (power) goes up, endurance goes down." He also said, "If you want to go fast, pedal fast." Concentrating only on power, that is, doing speed intervals, seeing how many watts you can squeeze out of your legs, will make you strong, but it won't make you fast. For that you need to train the heart to work at slightly below lactate threshold. For that a HRM is indispensable. :thumbsup: If you go into anaerobic, you've blown it. So much for power. You'll get dropped.


----------



## Guest

Fredrico said:


> For that you need to train the heart to work at slightly below lactate threshold. For that a HRM is indispensable. :thumbsup: If you go into anaerobic, you've blown it. So much for power. You'll get dropped.


Indispensable? Long word, if it meant "inferior to a powermeter" for that purpose you'd be right.

I'm all for wearing my HRM, but if I have to choose one or the other to help me ride right at my threshold, I'll take a powermeter hands down.


----------



## kreuzberg

Fredrico said:


> Concentrating only on power, that is, doing speed intervals, seeing how many watts you can squeeze out of your legs, will make you strong, but it won't make you fast. For that you need to train the heart to work at slightly below lactate threshold. For that a HRM is indispensable. :thumbsup: If you go into anaerobic, you've blown it. So much for power. You'll get dropped.


??? You can get fast using a powermeter. Just find your LT power and do long intervals at an effort just below that. You can find tons of threads on this site where people talk about SST intervals to raise their FTP. And I don't really understand the distinction you are trying to make between strength and speed.


----------



## kreuzberg

cjd said:


> Are you still sick at all? Taking any cold medicine with pseudo ephedrine in it? Have you been drinking any caffeine before your training? Have you been more excited/nervous for any reason for your recent rides? Have you tried a different HR monitor to see if it also registers higher bpm readings? Could be several explanations.


None of those. I just thought I'd go back to monitoring hr in addition to power. I think I'll stop though!


----------



## Fredrico

kytyree said:


> Indispensable? Long word, if it meant "inferior to a powermeter" for that purpose you'd be right.
> 
> I'm all for wearing my HRM, but if I have to choose one or the other to help me ride right at my threshold, I'll take a powermeter hands down.


Indispensable means very valuable. AT is often hard to perceive just by feel, especially in a cometitive situation. How many times have you upped the effort to reach that coveted wattage reading, gone into anaerobic, and blown up? The HRM tells you the awful truth. In a race, that's a valuable warning, before you get dropped.


----------



## Guest

Fredrico said:


> Indispensable means very valuable. Its often hard to perceive just by feel, especially in a cometitive situation. How many time have you upped the effor to reach that coveted wattage reading, gone into anaerobic, and blown up? The HRM tells you the awful truth. In a race, that's a valuable warning, before you get dropped.


Thanks for clearing that up for me 


If one was to go above their threshold at least the powermeter would reliably convey that information, HR may not even have time to respond to reflect those types of efforts. You can ride at threshold HR and make repeated short efforts above that level that it will not reflect.

As for getting dropped, assuming your proper positioning among other riders you either hold that wheel or you don't. Whether or not that effort is at threshold or above it isn't up to you unless you're the cat on the front.


----------



## kreuzberg

Fredrico said:


> Indispensable means very valuable. AT is often hard to perceive just by feel, especially in a cometitive situation. How many times have you upped the effort to reach that coveted wattage reading, gone into anaerobic, and blown up? The HRM tells you the awful truth. In a race, that's a valuable warning, before you get dropped.


Coveted wattage reading? In a situation where you would want to take your effort level to LT, you would just go up to your LT power. Going over that, yes you'd go anaerobic. But since you would know your FTP, you wouldn't be in danger of this happening.

Your heart rate won't tell you, IMO, very much. My LT heart rate is 175, but I have averaged 185 for hour long crits many times.


----------



## Fredrico

*Same purpose.*



kreuzberg said:


> ??? You can get fast using a powermeter. Just find your LT power and do long intervals at an effort just below that. .... And I don't really understand the distinction you are trying to make between strength and speed.


So you're using a powermeter to determine your maximum watts output just under LT, same as a heartrate monitor. Great. :thumbsup:

To go as fast as you can, you go into anaerobic, don't you? Then you have to slow down to recover. Short time speed intervals have always been described as "strength training." Then you have to do long intervals just under LT to train the cardio system up to supply larger amounts of energy to the greater demand the legs are now capable of making, right? I guess a powermeter is great for that, too, but so is a HRM.


----------



## Alex_Simmons/RST

Fredrico said:


> Sure, heartrate will go up increasing the effort form 400 watts to say, 420 watts, but if the heart could handle the lesser power last year at 150 bpm, it can handle the increased demand this year at 150 bpm.


Well if a rider can ride at 420W this year compared to 400W last year, then it's pretty bloody obvious they'll now be able to sustain 400W for longer and they are not working as _relatively _hard when now riding at 400W. Once again HR is redundant when you have the power data.



Fredrico said:


> You build up strength, power, and if you keep it up, the heart, lungs and cardio system adapt to handle the increased demands..


Strength is not a limiter in endurance cycling performance.



Fredrico said:


> How much work the muscles can do is measured by power meters in watts. How long you can sustain that power is entirely dependent on how hard the heart can work, how high the lactate threshold is (you can train that up too), blood volume per heartbeat, capillary size in the muscles, how much oxygen your lungs can process per minute, as well as pure muscle strength. The body responds to the challenges, man, all of it, not just the legs.


Yet HR only tells you the rate your heart is beating, it doesn't tell you about changes in any of the rest of these factors.



Fredrico said:


> A badly trained athlete quickly goes into anaerobic. His heart rate zooms way up under stress, struggling to handle the work demand. He blows up. As he rides more, his heart gets stronger, is able to pump more blood per stroke, and can work at higher bpm for longer periods of time. Lactate threshold goes up, aerobic power also goes up, so the rider can work harder and go faster without having to slow down and recover all the time.


That's all very nice but irrelevant in the context of whether HR info is valuable additional information when you are using a power meter.



Fredrico said:


> We're talking about two different things, power and endurance.


Well then you really have no idea then. Endurance is the ability to sustain power.



Fredrico said:


> Concentrating only on power, that is, doing speed intervals, seeing how many watts you can squeeze out of your legs, will make you strong, but it won't make you fast. For that you need to train the heart to work at slightly below lactate threshold. For that a HRM is indispensable. :thumbsup: If you go into anaerobic, you've blown it. So much for power. You'll get dropped.


Wow, this one is a cracker. You _really _don't know what you're talking about.

So riding faster with a power meter is a bad way to train to become a faster rider?

If you rely on HR to do hard intervals, then the chances of blowing up are actually greater than if you use power, since HR response lags actual effort by some minutes and also does not account for cardiac drift. Your efforts will be sub-optimal as a result.

Indeed the higher the level of relative intensity, the worse HR is as a guide to successfully monitoring/managing intensity of effort. This is the area of training where HR is not only redundant, it is downright misleading.


----------



## asgelle

Fredrico said:


> Then you have to do long intervals just under LT to train the cardio system up to supply larger amounts of energy to the greater demand the legs are now capable of making, right?


As long as LT (power or VO2) is less than VO2max (power or VO2) why is there any need to train the cardio system? It would seem O2 delivery is not the limiter.


----------



## Fredrico

kreuzberg said:


> ... My LT heart rate is 175, but I have averaged 185 for hour long crits many times.


What's your maximum HR, fer chris'sake? 210? How do you figure 175? Seems like on a good day, you'd be well up in the 180s!


----------



## Alex_Simmons/RST

Fredrico said:


> So you're using a powermeter to determine your maximum watts output just under LT, same as a heartrate monitor. Great. :thumbsup:


It's not the same thing.
HR will vary through significantly such an effort, even though you are capable of sustaining the same power output. If you hold HR steady, you will keep going slower (power will keep falling).

You might say, "so what, it's still a hard effort and that's what matters". Well it does matter, since a falling power trace is a sub-optimal way to pace a time trial, and if one trains to pace poorly, that's how they'll race.



Fredrico said:


> To go as fast as you can, you go into anaerobic, don't you? Then you have to slow down to recover.


Exactly, and this is precisely why HR is misleading when going hard, since it takes so long to react to what the body is doing. You can have nearly depleted your anaerobic capacity before HR even gets to "threshold" levels, let alone above that. If you were relying on HR for that info, then it's far too late, the horse has well and truly bolted.



Fredrico said:


> Short time speed intervals have always been described as "strength training."


Perhaps that's how they are described by some, but it is wrong. Cycling is a sub-maximal force (strength) activity. The forces exerted on the pedals when going relatively hard (e.g. at say time trial power) are nearly an order of magnitude less than our maximal force generation capacity (i.e. our strength).



Fredrico said:


> Then you have to do long intervals just under LT to train the cardio system up to supply larger amounts of energy to the greater demand the legs are now capable of making, right? I guess a powermeter is great for that, too, but so is a HRM.


You do efforts below, at and above threshold. You can use a HRM to help with that, but since we are talking about whether to use HR when you have a power meter, then once again it is redundant, and at times, misleading.

for your education, here is the HR trace for someone doing efforts at threshold and at a power level that induces VO2max. As you can see, if you are careful, threshold work could be managed with HR only, if you were aware of how HR behaved during such efforts. However once you start doing work harder than that, then HR is pretty useless.


----------



## Fredrico

*It sure is!*



asgelle said:


> As long as LT (power or VO2) is less than VO2max (power or VO2) why is there any need to train the cardio system? It would seem O2 delivery is not the limiter.


You're talking about power, but to sustain it, you have to have a great cardio system to supply nutrients and oxygen that the muscles are frantically demanding to metabolize into energy and work that crank. If it can't, you're anaerobic and screwed in a very few minutes!

You train the cardio system by concentrating on heartrate, keeping up a sufficient cadence so as not to tire the legs, you know, lactic acid build up? When the legs get tired, you slow down whether you want to or not. Save the legs: train the aerobic fibers with fast cadence, and use the oxygen and other metabolites (fuel) readily available from the lungs and heart. Eventually, you'll raise LT to a higher heartrate, and recover quicker after those unavoidable excursions into anaerobic, like sticking to Mark Cavendish's wheel!


----------



## Alex_Simmons/RST

Fredrico said:


> You're talking about power, but to sustain it, you have to have a great cardio system to supply nutrients and oxygen that the muscles are frantically demanding to metabolize into energy and work that crank. If it can't, you're anaerobic and screwed in a very few minutes!
> 
> You train the cardio system by concentrating on heartrate, keeping up a sufficient cadence so as not to tire the legs, you know, lactic acid build up? When the legs get tired, you slow down whether you want to or not. Save the legs: train the aerobic fibers with fast cadence, and use the oxygen and other metabolites (fuel) readily available from the lungs and heart.


Have you ever used a power meter?

What has cadence got to do with build up of blood lactate? 
A: nothing. 
BL is primarily a function of intensity (i.e. power) and duration.
And lactate is actually a fuel source metabolised by the body.

What has cadence got to do with muscle fibre type recruitment? 
A: not so much. 
Muscle fibre type recruitment is much more a function of power (or intended power) than it is of cadence per se (or put another way, it's more about how close you are relative to your maximal pedal force - pedal speed curve).


----------



## asgelle

Fredrico said:


> You're talking about power, but to sustain it, you have to have a great cardio system to supply nutrients and oxygen that the muscles are frantically demanding to metabolize into energy and work that crank.


Sorry, I still don't follow. Are you saying there is a need to train the cardio system to supply O2 at sub VO2max intensities; and if so, why? Next, are you now saying that a performance limiter is the ability of the heart to circulate blood born nutrients? What is the evidence for that?


----------



## Fredrico

*So answer me this, coach:*



Alex_Simmons/RST said:


> ...Well I have already said that the primary (actually really the only) useful function of HRMs is as an indicator of intensity. But if you have a power meter (and this thread is about whether to bother with HR when you have a power meter), then HR is redundant as power measurement is a far superior measure of intensity...


Ok, that's fine. "Intensity" as you use it is still an obvious measure of the effort the rider is putting out, and power is the result. But isn't that fairly well measured in speed? I know, the wind and terrain and who you're riding behind are variables, but couldn't you measure power with a cheap speedometer telling you how fast you're going over a given period of time? 

I can hold a steady heartrate for a long time, an hour or more, at high intensity. As long as I stay below LT, i can finish a ride as strong, sometimes stronger, than when I started. So what do you mean by this "falling power trace" maintaining the same HR? Just keep it below LT, and you're fine, IME.

You bring up a good point about strength (maximal force) and power (submaximal force), and we've been talking across each other. So power is defined as how fast one can go in a TT, as you say, at far below the strength the legs are capable of. That's what I was trying to get at with muscle fibers. Power is really more a function of aerobic conditioning than sheer muscle strength, the ability to sustain an intense effort, to work, over a long time. This of course would be nicely measured with a powermeter.

I guess I'll have to conceed that powermeters are superior to HRMs for, well, power training, but I still think HRMs are useful training tools, if one chooses to go native without one.


----------



## Guest

Fredrico said:


> Ok, that's fine. "Intensity" as you use it is still an obvious measure of the effort the rider is putting out, and power is the result. But isn't that fairly well measured in speed? I know, the wind and terrain and who you're riding behind are variables, but couldn't you measure power with a cheap speedometer telling you how fast you're going over a given period of time?



Variables yes, but large very important ones.



> So what do you mean by this "falling power trace" maintaining the same HR? Just keep it below LT, and you're fine, IME.


Looking at riders performance where they held HR steady over the duration, power output will tend tail off or decrease in the latter stages. Yes pacing with a HRM is better than blowing up by going to hard at some point, but generally an evenly paced effort with regards to your power output will produce the fastest time. I say generally to avoid getting into the pacing strategies for winds and terrain.


HRM are useful, and I wish given the difference in cost that they were at least as useful as a powermeter, or better yet that powermeters were cheap.


----------



## Fredrico

*You're messing with me, right?*



asgelle said:


> Sorry, I still don't follow. Are you saying there is a need to train the cardio system to supply O2 at sub VO2max intensities; and if so, why? Next, are you now saying that a performance limiter is the ability of the heart to circulate blood born nutrients? What is the evidence for that?


If the cardio system can't deliver fuel at the rate demanded by the muscles, they use up their own glycogen stores, fill up with lactic acid and other waste products, and stop dead in their tracks. I'd say that's a limiting factor, wouldn't you?

Training the cardio system is not separated, obviously, from training the legs, if that's what you're getting at.  The whole point of aerobic exercise is to make the heart strong, to clean the arteries and veins of cholesterol, which is much more valuable to health and long life, than immediate muscular gains, which come and go with the seasons. So yes, I'll keep it under LT most of the time, and when I do go AT, drop back and recover before blowing up.

For most people, except Mark Cavendish perhaps, aerobic conditioning is the whole point of fitness. I'm sure Cavendish has awesome aerobic capacity, but the guys winning the TDF are the ones staying at the front day after day, able to sustain long breakaways and solo TTs, not having your team mates tow you to the finish line for a 20 second moment of glory,


----------



## Alex_Simmons/RST

Fredrico said:


> Ok, that's fine. "Intensity" as you use it is still an obvious measure of the effort the rider is putting out, and power is the result. But isn't that fairly well measured in speed? I know, the wind and terrain and who you're riding behind are variables, but couldn't you measure power with a cheap speedometer telling you how fast you're going over a given period of time?


No. Even in an indoor velodrome, where the variables are minimised, then speed at same power is still subject to variables, primarily air density, which is affected by temperature, air pressure and a little bit by humidity. Also by your set up and clothes you are using.

Out on the road, speed is pretty useless as a guide to intensity. Way too many variables.

On an indoor trainer, it's a reasonable proxy for power, but one must also then know how stable the speed-power relationship of a given trainer is, since it can and does vary. 

Here's an example of some threshold efforts on a ~4km loop that is basically pretty flattish/gently variable terrain. Notice how much speed (blue) varies while maintaining power (yellow). The orange line is altimeter readings, which shows an overall variance of ~ 12-14 metres per 3.8km lap, or an average gradient of only +/- 0.7% depending on which side of the loop you are on












Fredrico said:


> I can hold a steady heartrate for a long time, an hour or more, at high intensity. As long as I stay below LT, i can finish a ride as strong, sometimes stronger, than when I started. So what do you mean by this "falling power trace" maintaining the same HR? Just keep it below LT, and you're fine, IME.


Here is an example of a rider getting up to their "LTHR" (red line) and maintaining it. See what happens to speed (blue) and power (yellow):


----------



## Fredrico

*Yeah, but:*



kytyree said:


> ...Looking at riders performance where they held HR steady over the duration, power output will tend tail off or decrease in the latter stages. Yes pacing with a HRM is better than blowing up by going to hard at some point, but generally an evenly paced effort with regards to your power output will produce the fastest time....


Seems to me either you keep the heartrate under LT and go with what conditioning you have, or if you're not able to sustain the same watts, accept the inevitability of having to back off. If you just go by watts, a measurement of power, and your power is dropping off, seems like your heart rate will just keep edging up into anaerobic as you struggle to keep up same reading


----------



## Fredrico

*Interesting graph.*



Alex_Simmons/RST said:


> ...Here is an example of a rider getting up to their "LTHR" (red line) and maintaining it. See what happens to speed (blue) and power (yellow)...


What accounts for that even, slightly declining line? Too close to AT? Dwindling nutrients and water? Lactic acid creeping up?

Hey, Alex, if you're in Australia now:

HAPPY NEW YEAR!! :7:


----------



## asgelle

Fredrico said:


> If the cardio system can't deliver fuel at the rate demanded by the muscles, they use up their own glycogen stores, fill up with lactic acid and other waste products, and stop dead in their tracks.


You say "if the cardio system can't deliver fuel at the rate demanded by the muscles ...", but is there any evidence that this ever occurs. And even if it did, it wouldn't necessarily require any change in the cardio system to relieve the imbalance. A higher concentration of blood fuel would also solve the problem. So how can you say the answer is in better cardio, rather than higher blood fuel concentration. Also in your post you say that concentration of lactic acid within the cells depends on fuel concentration outside. This is something I never heard before. Finally, I certainly have seen that lactic acid is not a waste product of metabolism but is a fuel for the metabolic pathway.


----------



## Fredrico

*Happy New Year, asgelle!*



asgelle said:


> You say "if the cardio system can't deliver fuel at the rate demanded by the muscles ...", but is there any evidence that this ever occurs. And even if it did, it wouldn't necessarily require any change in the cardio system to relieve the imbalance. A higher concentration of blood fuel would also solve the problem. So how can you say the answer is in better cardio, rather than higher blood fuel concentration. Also in your post you say that concentration of lactic acid within the cells depends on fuel concentration outside. This is something I never heard before. Finally, I certainly have seen that lactic acid is not a waste product of metabolism but is a fuel for the metabolic pathway.


The whole meaning of anaerobic threshold is, that's the point of intensity where the muscles start to burn energy faster than they can be fueled. The evidence this occurs is the muscles fatigue, lactic acid builds up as a product of lactate respiration as opposed to oxygen respiration from the lungs. 50% of this acid is converted into glycogen and fuels the mitochondria, the rest can't be expelled fast enough, and it hurts.

The heart goes into overdrive, trying to pump metabolites into the inferno, which only gets worse, until you blow from exhaustion. I've seen riders throw up, fall off their bikes, after such efforts. Don't forget, the blood delivers metabolites, which are oxidized to burn energy, and also removes the waste products, lactic acid, and CO2 exhaled through the lungs. Higher blood fuel concentration as you put it, is increased flow through the muscles, driven by the heart, which pumps faster to keep up with the demand.

You're right, lactic acid is a fuel for "anaerobic respiration."



http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/16/health/nutrition/16run.html said:


> Lactic acid is actually a fuel, not a caustic waste product. Muscles make it deliberately, producing it from glucose, and they burn it to obtain energy. The reason trained athletes can perform so hard and so long is because their intense training causes their muscles to adapt so they more readily and efficiently absorb lactic acid....
> 
> The understanding now is that muscle cells convert glucose or glycogen to lactic acid. The lactic acid is taken up and used as a fuel by mitochondria, the energy factories in muscle cells.
> 
> Mitochondria even have a special transporter protein to move the substance into them, Dr. Brooks found. Intense training makes a difference, he said, because it can make double the mitochondrial mass.


And if that isn't enough:



http://www.brianmac.co.uk/lactic.htm said:


> Aerobic Capacity: Given that high levels of lactate/hydrogen ions will be detrimental to performance, one of the key reasons for endurance training is to enable the body to perform at a greater pace with a minimal amount of lactate. This can be done by long steady runs, which will develop the aerobic capacity by means of capillarisation (formation of more small blood vessels, thus enhancing oxygen transport to the muscles) and by creating greater efficiency in the heart and lungs. If the aerobic capacity is greater, it means there will be more oxygen available to the working muscles and this should delay the onset of lactic acid at a given work intensity.
> 
> Anaerobic Threshold: Lactic acid starts to accumulate in the muscles once you start operating above your anaerobic threshold. This is normally somewhere between 80% and 90% of your maximum heart rate (MHR) in trained athletes.


Can you relate to that? :incazzato:


----------



## asgelle

Fredrico said:


> The whole meaning of anaerobic threshold is, that's the point of intensity where the muscles start to burn energy faster than they can be fueled.


I stopped reading here.


----------



## Fredrico

asgelle said:


> I stopped reading here.


........................Why?


----------



## asgelle

Fredrico said:


> ........................Why?


Because energy is released through combustion (or metabolism). Energy can not be burned. The first sentence makes no sense.

It also makes no sense that there is insufficient fuel in the blood to fuel skeletal muscles. If that were the case, it would also be insufficient to fuel the heart, internal organs, and the brain.


----------



## Fredrico

*Thanks!*



asgelle said:


> Because energy is released through combustion (or metabolism). Energy can not be burned. The first sentence makes no sense.
> 
> It also makes no sense that there is insufficient fuel in the blood to fuel skeletal muscles. If that were the case, it would also be insufficient to fuel the heart, internal organs, and the brain.


That's right, energy and fuel are two different things.  Thanks for pointing that out. :thumbsup:

On the second thought, though, I'd say the brain isn't processing fuel at a rapid rate performing high wattage work, so has no problem receiving metabolites and expelling waste products. The heart simply levels off when it reaches 10-20% above AT, and I guarantee, the work will slow down very shortly after that, and the heart rate will follow.

In fact I've seen many riders go into oxygen debt in the head, as if all the blood goes to the legs and out of the brain. :shocked: I've seen evidence in some riders where the blood never returns to the brain. Or, maybe huge efforts killed off brain cells from prolonged oxygen starvation. :lol:


----------



## Alex_Simmons/RST

Fredrico said:


> What accounts for that even, slightly declining line? Too close to AT? Dwindling nutrients and water? Lactic acid creeping up?
> 
> Hey, Alex, if you're in Australia now:
> 
> HAPPY NEW YEAR!! :7:


Happy new year to you.

It happens because, despite what his heart rate suggested, he was not capable of sustaining that power level. BL level would certainly have been rising but that's an outcome, not a cause of the decline in power. 

Note that his HR did not decline, meaning he was capable of sustaining such a HR for that length of time and at a level he would consider "theshold HR". Have a look at the opening minutes. HR wouldn't suggest he went too hard, but he did and that is clear when you look at the power in the opening minutes.

Here's another example of the cardiac drift. This is from a different rider who as part of an indoor session did 60-min of tempo at ~ 90-91% of their FTP.


----------



## Fredrico

*Interesting graph.*

I'll have to go back and study the first graph some more, but this one is easy to interpret, for a dilettante like myself.

His power (watts) and cadence are remarkably stable, while his heart rate increases from the low 140s to mid 150s. Anyone who's done a TT with a HRM has had similar experiences. The HR rises to sustain speed, slowly rising above LT, and definitely staying there, as the legs fatigue.

What are the advantages of a power meter with respect to this problem? It gives new information, but how is that information worked with, differently than with a HRM? So far, the only way its superior, is that it tells you instantaneously how hard you're working, whereas a HRM is always delayed, too late, as you say, to avoid problems with recovery.  What are some drills that can be done with a power meter that can't be done with a speedometer and HRM?

I'm still trying to get a handle on why a power meter is better than a HRM, if they both tell you, basically, how hard you're working. The HRM gives valuable information about a vital organ, wtihout which no work can be done, nothing can be accomplished. Wattages are so, well, abstract.


----------



## Alex_Simmons/RST

Fredrico said:


> I'll have to go back and study the first graph some more, but this one is easy to interpret, for a dilettante like myself.
> 
> His power (watts) and cadence are remarkably stable, while his heart rate increases from the low 140s to mid 150s. Anyone who's done a TT with a HRM has had similar experiences. The HR rises to sustain speed, slowly rising above LT, and definitely staying there, as the legs fatigue.
> 
> What are the advantages of a power meter with respect to this problem? It gives new information, but how is that information worked with, differently than with a HRM? So far, the only way its superior, is that it tells you instantaneously how hard you're working, whereas a HRM is always delayed, too late, as you say, to avoid problems with recovery.  What are some drills that can be done with a power meter that can't be done with a speedometer and HRM?
> 
> I'm still trying to get a handle on why a power meter is better than a HRM, if they both tell you, basically, how hard you're working. The HRM gives valuable information about a vital organ, wtihout which no work can be done, nothing can be accomplished. Wattages are so, well, abstract.


But you see, this is NOT a discussion about using HR *OR* power when guiding training efforts.

Get back to the OP's question: does knowing HR add any value when you have a power meter? The answer is no.

However the fact that you can see power provides some insight into how HR behaves.

Is using a HRM alone to help guide your training efforts feasible? The answer is yes. No one disputes that, provided they understand the relationship of HR to effort (i.e. it lags somewhat, the phenomenon of cardiac drift, day to day variability due to factors other than how hard one is riding, and that HR becomes less useful the higher the relative intensity and/or the greater the variability of effort).

Now of course we haven't even touched on the myriad of other things that one can use a power meter for, that could never be contemplated with an HRM. I mean, gauging the intensity of effort is but one small element of training with a power meter.

But that is another topic, since this is about whether HR adds value to power data, not whether you can use one or the other to gauge effort.

Can you exaplain what you mean by wattage is "abstract"? Power is what it is, work per unit time. I don't see it as being abstract at all.


----------



## aussiebullet

Fredrico said:


> I'm still trying to get a handle on why a power meter is better than a HRM, if they both tell you, basically, how hard you're working. The HRM gives valuable information about a vital organ, wtihout which no work can be done, nothing can be accomplished. Wattages are so, well, abstract.





The HRM isn't telling the user how hard their working it is telling them how fast their heart is beating THAT'S ALL!
The power meter is telling them how hard their working.

For examlpe if l ride for an hour at ~170 bpm with an avg cadance of 110rpm I'll get an avg 270w,
but if l ride for an hour at ~170 bpm with an avg cadance of 85 l'll get an avg of 300w.
That is just one way a HRM is misleading.

And for AWC intervals and short VO2 intervals a HRM is all but useless as the interval is over before the HR can respond and give any valuable feedback.

Shall l continue with more examples or do you get it?


----------



## Fredrico

Alex_Simmons/RST said:


> But you see, this is NOT a discussion about using HR *OR* power when guiding training efforts.
> 
> Get back to the OP's question: does knowing HR add any value when you have a power meter? The answer is no.
> 
> However the fact that you can see power provides some insight into how HR behaves.
> 
> Is using a HRM alone to help guide your training efforts feasible? The answer is yes. No one disputes that, provided they understand the relationship of HR to effort (i.e. it lags somewhat, the phenomenon of cardiac drift, day to day variability due to factors other than how hard one is riding, and that HR becomes less useful the higher the relative intensity and/or the greater the variability of effort).
> 
> Now of course we haven't even touched on the myriad of other things that one can use a power meter for, that could never be contemplated with an HRM. I mean, gauging the intensity of effort is but one small element of training with a power meter.
> 
> But that is another topic, since this is about whether HR adds value to power data, not whether you can use one or the other to gauge effort.
> 
> Can you exaplain what you mean by wattage is "abstract"? Power is what it is, work per unit time. I don't see it as being abstract at all.


That's a succinct answer. Thank you. :thumbsup:

My feelings about power measured in watts being abstract, come from not having any standard of comparison to understand it, to quantify it. Speed, cadence, heart rate are all familiar quantifiable aspects of cycling, so how is this "power" measured and quantified in watts? Resistance or strain on the rear wheel?


----------



## Fredrico

*Not quite.*



aussiebullet said:


> The HRM isn't telling the user how hard their working it is telling them how fast their heart is beating THAT'S ALL!
> The power meter is telling them how hard their working.
> 
> For examlpe if l ride for an hour at ~170 bpm with an avg cadance of 110rpm I'll get an avg 270w,
> but if l ride for an hour at ~170 bpm with an avg cadance of 85 l'll get an avg of 300w.
> That is just one way a HRM is misleading.
> 
> And for AWC intervals and short VO2 intervals a HRM is all but useless as the interval is over before the HR can respond and give any valuable feedback.
> 
> Shall l continue with more examples or do you get it?


:idea: Heart rate is definitely telling me how much I'm trying to turn the crank, although it may not be telling me how much power I'm delivering to it. A weak rider might deliver 150 watts into the rear wheel with his heart going 150 bpm, while a strong rider can put out 300 watts at 150 bpm. Watts defines work by results, while HR defines work as effort, from what I can gather. There's a philosophical difference, but no matter. A given rider can quantify his training by watts instead of heart rate--or TT results, or finishing up front in the club ride, with the advantage he can compare his results with his mates. Watts is an absolute value, not thrown off by the varieties of physiques and vagaries of individual conditioning. Speaking of which:

If you can get 30 more watts out of your legs cranking 85 rpm instead of 110 rpm at the same heart rate (intensity), I'm going to have to change my assumptions about training. :biggrin5: No joke. The only way I'm going to sustain 25 mph (speed having a close quantifiable relationship to watts)with any hope of aerobic respiration, that is, keep it up, is to pedal 95-100 rpm. Any lower than that and the strain gets a bit too much on the legs!

Maybe I should get a power meter and strengthen my quads. Forget about this high cadence BS Lance and Carmichael keep bragging about. :frown2:


----------



## Alex_Simmons/RST

Fredrico said:


> My feelings about power measured in watts being abstract, come from not having any standard of comparison to understand it, to quantify it. Speed, cadence, heart rate are all familiar quantifiable aspects of cycling, so how is this "power" measured and quantified in watts? Resistance or strain on the rear wheel?


You see, therein lies the problem. Just because things are easy to measure, doesn't mean they are important.

There are many ways of measuring power, the most practical being on bike power meters such as the SRM, Quarq or Powertap. These use strain gauges to measure torque, which is combined with rotational speed to determine power.


----------



## aussiebullet

Fredrico said:


> :Maybe I should get a power meter and strengthen my quads. Forget about this high cadence BS Lance and Carmichael keep bragging about. :frown2:



Well if 95-100rpm is good and gets you 25mph then 105 -110rpm must be better, hell what is stopping everyone from spinning at 125-130rpm or higher all day everyday? Seriously l'd like to know why do you think that is? 
lf you do decide to buy a powermeter to use with your HRM be sure to let us know why a high cadence all the time does not necessarily = your best performance. That is after you buy the book "Racing & training with a powermeter" by A.Coggan & H.Allen and do a few of the simple tests one of which is to find your optimal self selected cadence that produces the highest power output for the duration your targetting, remembering that all things being equal bike position etc, etc "more power = more speed" it's that simple!

Seriously the Lance phenomenon and all the poor training advice l followed for half a decade like "learn to spin more you'll be a better cyclist" could not have been further from the truth, except for maybee complete noobs who l often see around town riding at ~50rpms rocking from side to side trying to use all their body weight to keep the cranks turning.

Perhaps Jan Ullrich could have spun more and won a few more tours as well but l honestly think he would have tried everything and found his self selected cadence produced the best results which is why l advise everyone to ride at their self selected cadence, so if sprinting at high rpm's feels good and gets you better results then sprint at high rpm's or if doing long climbs at lower rpm's feels better then your normal cadence on the flats then by all means do it, but one size does not fit all,
which is why coaches who prescibe specific ranges for high or low cadence intervals are perhaps not the best coaches in the first place IMHO, rather they should be focusing on increasing the power or increasing the duration of the interval at a slighly lower power at what ever cadence gets the best results :thumbsup:


----------



## bikerecker

853 said:


> I'm getting a powermeter and it does not come w/ a chest strap....Is this something I should also purchase to make my training more effective?
> 
> thanks


Maybe this guy should be emulated. He is technically adept, coached by the best, has access to any and all training aids, and as is evident from this pic, he has clearly not thrown out his HR strap: 

http://www.cyclingfans.com/2009_amgen_tour_of_california_prologue_photos_part1


----------



## asgelle

bikerecker said:


> Maybe this guy should be emulated. He is technically adept, coached by the best, has access to any and all training aids, and as is evident from this pic, he has clearly not thrown out his HR strap:


If I'm not mistaken he is also given money to use certain pieces of equipment. Has anyone else heard this?


----------



## Fredrico

*Self-selected cadence?*



aussiebullet said:


> Well if 95-100rpm is good and gets you 25mph then 105 -110rpm must be better, hell what is stopping everyone from spinning at 125-130rpm or higher all day everyday? Seriously l'd like to know why do you think that is?
> lf you do decide to buy a powermeter to use with your HRM be sure to let us know why a high cadence all the time does not necessarily = your best performance. That is after you buy the book "Racing & training with a powermeter" by A.Coggan & H.Allen and do a few of the simple tests one of which is to find your optimal self selected cadence that produces the highest power output for the duration your targetting, remembering that all things being equal bike position etc, etc "more power = more speed" it's that simple!
> 
> Seriously the Lance phenomenon and all the poor training advice l followed for half a decade like "learn to spin more you'll be a better cyclist" could not have been further from the truth, except for maybee complete noobs who l often see around town riding at ~50rpms rocking from side to side trying to use all their body weight to keep the cranks turning.
> 
> Perhaps Jan Ullrich could have spun more and won a few more tours as well but l honestly think he would have tried everything and found his self selected cadence produced the best results which is why l advise everyone to ride at their self selected cadence, so if sprinting at high rpm's feels good and gets you better results then sprint at high rpm's or if doing long climbs at lower rpm's feels better then your normal cadence on the flats then by all means do it, but one size does not fit all,
> which is why coaches who prescibe specific ranges for high or low cadence intervals are perhaps not the best coaches in the first place IMHO, rather they should be focusing on increasing the power or increasing the duration of the interval at a slighly lower power at what ever cadence gets the best results :thumbsup:


Point well taken about different riders pedaling at different cadences to get maximum power. Hot to train my leg speed up and get a strong cardio system, I've been spinning religiously for the last 15 years. It's taught me how to "turn the crank in circles," actually rehabilitating a knee injury induced from weight lifting and aggravated by powering big gears at low cadences.

Then, my power curve undoubtedly peaked somewhere around 85 rpm. Now I'd say its around 95 rpm, although I'd have to admit it drops off above that. The heart is working at the same rate, but the legs are following the crank around, saving the knees. The slow twitch aerobic fibers are trained to do the work, so it takes quite a bit longer to go into anaerobic than before. The heart rate curves are flatter. I can prolong efforts on the edge of AT, going in and out, quickly recovering, never having to back off. It's that old adaptive response thing, again. Can one train up leg speed, or should he settle on what works best at the cadences he's used to?

I've known trackies who could deliver awesome power up to 140 rpm, hitting 40-45 mph. Of course they also had huge quads, and could deliver awesome power at low cadences.

On club hammerfests, I've sprinted up hills in 42-21 at 95+ rpm, well into anaerobic, but not blowing it at the top, same as I would have, churning a higher gear, 42-17, at the same speed, at much lower cadence. I know training with fast cadences improves the lungs, heart, and cardio system. Training at moderate to low cadences makes the legs stronger. You need both: strength and endurance.

Now ya got me going, aussiebullet! I'd like to learn more about "self-selected cadence." :shocked: You're talking about training in the highest gear your legs "can stay on top of," right?


----------



## Fredrico

asgelle said:


> If I'm not mistaken he is also given money to use certain pieces of equipment. Has anyone else heard this?


He's also an old fart who pedals too fast and clings to outdated training aids. :shocked:


----------



## Alex_Simmons/RST

Fredrico said:


> He's also an old fart who pedals too fast and clings to outdated training aids. :shocked:


Like his power meter?

http://autobus.cyclingnews.com/phot...es/lance_armstrong_trek_livestrong09/IMG_1761


----------



## Fredrico

*Brings up two questions.*



Alex_Simmons/RST said:


> Like his power meter?
> 
> http://autobus.cyclingnews.com/phot...es/lance_armstrong_trek_livestrong09/IMG_1761


1) Does Lance's, does anyone's, power output vary in relationship to his heart rate and cadence, or is it always the same?

2) Why does Lance still use a HRM?


----------



## aussiebullet

Fredrico said:


> He's also an old fart who pedals too fast and clings to outdated training aids. :shocked:



How do you know he pedals too fast? Have you seen his training and race data?
l know l havn't, so 130rpm might be too fast for him 90rpm might be grinding to him and 110rpm might just be his optimal cadence where he produces his highest sustainable power, but again l'd be just guessing, like you


----------



## Fredrico

*I was joking, mate!*



aussiebullet said:


> How do you know he pedals too fast? Have you seen his training and race data?
> l know l havn't, so 130rpm might be too fast for him 90rpm might be grinding to him and 110rpm might just be his optimal cadence where he produces his highest sustainable power, but again l'd be just guessing, like you


We can only speculate in our perhaps vain attempts to unravel this mystery, not to mention resolve whether a HRM is still useful once one has graduated to a power meter!

(I think I've developed a bad case of cabin fever. :biggrin5: I don't care how cold it is tomorrow. I'll have to brave it and go ride.:eek6


----------



## Alex_Simmons/RST

Fredrico said:


> 1) Does Lance's, does anyone's, power output vary in relationship to his heart rate and cadence, or is it always the same?


Questions is wrong way round. Nonetheless, it varies. So what?
It doesn't add any value knowing this.

Why does it vary? Well here are some possible reasons (not my original list BTW):
nutrition, heat, cold, emotion, hydration, fatigue, accumulated training, cardiovascular drift, decreased O2 availability at higher altitudes, lack of sleep, time of day, medication, diet (e.g., caffeine), recent illness/infection, variability of intensity and terrain, psychogenic factors (e.g., nervousness), cadence, position on the bicycle, such as when time trialing and a host of other things affect HR.



Fredrico said:


> 2) Why does Lance still use a HRM?


You'd have to ask him.


----------



## Alex_Simmons/RST

Some actual data to ponder. 

Following are two charts showing power and heart rate for an elite female road and sometimes track enduro rider, covering about 6 months of training and racing. Each data point represents one ride day. Only days where both HR & power were recorded are shown.

It shows:
1. Average Power vs Average HR and 
2. Normalised Power vs Average HR

Also show are a linear trend line and the R^2 value (an indicator of how well or not the data fits the trendline).

Note the wide variance in HR for a given power level, and the wide range of power for a given HR level.


----------



## aussiebullet

Fredrico said:


> We can only speculate in our perhaps vain attempts to unravel this mystery, not to mention resolve whether a HRM is still useful once one has graduated to a power meter!
> 
> (I think I've developed a bad case of cabin fever. :biggrin5: I don't care how cold it is tomorrow. I'll have to brave it and go ride.:eek6



I'm having the opposite problem here, need to get up early and train to beat the heat.

Me hates summer :arf: Luv's winter, spring and autumn though :9:


----------



## BooBah

*Brings up 3 more*



Fredrico said:


> 1) Does Lance's, does anyone's, power output vary in relationship to his heart rate and cadence, or is it always the same?
> 
> 2) Why does Lance still use a HRM?


1. What does Lance have to do with anything?
2. How do you know he still uses a HRM? He's actually a long time SRM user. Certainly in training. Even Carmichael references setting Lance's training intensities via wattage targets (now, how much Chris Carmichael actually trains Lance is open for debate).
3. If so, do you know how he uses it and when? Like most, during races he is undoubtedly using RPE (which incidently, using a PM is a great way to get more in touch with RPE as contradictory as it may sound). 

In response to your first question HR, power output, and cadence often decouple. In fact, if you've ever attempted block training you will often be able to hit all of your power targets (or in some cases rise) while keeping cadence the same BUT you'll often see HR drop for the same RPE on successive days. Then again, HR may rise. It depends. That variability and often unpredictability with regard to HR is what makes its usefulness relative to power and RPE questionable at best. 

As others have noted, what does your HR tell you when you're doing a shortish interval such as 1 minute given lag? Heck, even longer intervals have the same issue where HR/power output/RPE will all be telling you different stories particularly at the beginning of the effort. 

Here's an extreme/simple example. Go do an all out 1 minute interval. Once the minute is over stop pedaling and just coast. Where is your HR? I bet it's over what you're calling threshold and will stay there for maybe 10 seconds. It may even rise. Your power is 0 at that time, you're doing no work but your HR alone would say otherwise. It's an extreme example of course but it illustrates how power and HR decouple. You can also look at the beginning of the effort wherein power will be high, RPE will be high, but HR will still be in whatever you're using for Zone 2 for instance.


----------



## Fredrico

*Thanks for your input, BooBah.*



BooBah said:


> 1. What does Lance have to do with anything?
> 2. How do you know he still uses a HRM? He's actually a long time SRM user. Certainly in training. Even Carmichael references setting Lance's training intensities via wattage targets (now, how much Chris Carmichael actually trains Lance is open for debate).
> 3. If so, do you know how he uses it and when? Like most, during races he is undoubtedly using RPE (which incidently, using a PM is a great way to get more in touch with RPE as contradictory as it may sound).
> 
> In response to your first question HR, power output, and cadence often decouple. In fact, if you've ever attempted block training you will often be able to hit all of your power targets (or in some cases rise) while keeping cadence the same BUT you'll often see HR drop for the same RPE on successive days. Then again, HR may rise. It depends. That variability and often unpredictability with regard to HR is what makes its usefulness relative to power and RPE questionable at best.
> 
> As others have noted, what does your HR tell you when you're doing a shortish interval such as 1 minute given lag? Heck, even longer intervals have the same issue where HR/power output/RPE will all be telling you different stories particularly at the beginning of the effort.
> 
> Here's an extreme/simple example. Go do an all out 1 minute interval. Once the minute is over stop pedaling and just coast. Where is your HR? I bet it's over what you're calling threshold and will stay there for maybe 10 seconds. It may even rise. Your power is 0 at that time, you're doing no work but your HR alone would say otherwise. It's an extreme example of course but it illustrates how power and HR decouple. You can also look at the beginning of the effort wherein power will be high, RPE will be high, but HR will still be in whatever you're using for Zone 2 for instance.


I think I mentioned above somewhere :biggrin5: that heart rate lags behind actual efforts, but if you know that, and it's obvious to say the least, you know that the HRM isn't giving a power measurement, but definitely tells you how you're coping with that effort, what kind of day you're having. In a race, it could definitely tell you whether you're going to get dropped or not. HRMs and power meters measure separate functions. These functions are related, but as you say, in ways that vary widely between individuals, relative fitness and training, and what kind of night you had before the ride.

Power meters have come along to measure power, great, but that's another set of data than HR, so if you're interested in heart rate, why jettison it as unnecessary? No question power meters are great training aids, so are speedometers and your favorite course, but they don't have to be viewed as replacements for HRMs. Doesn't have to be one or the other. They can still complement each other. :thumbsup:

And oh, wait. Lance is wearing a HRM under that jersey pictured above. He's also won that big race in France a lot, but ok, he's trained with a power meter (and wind tunnels, high altitude, oxygen tents......). Lance is da man. What's RPE? :shocked:


----------



## Alex_Simmons/RST

Fredrico said:


> Power meters have come along to measure power, great, but that's another set of data than HR, so if you're interested in heart rate, why jettison it as unnecessary?


It's not just another set of data, it is far far more useful, by an order of magnitude.

And as I have explained, if you have power, HR is at best redundant and at worse misleading. But it requires an understanding of power meter data and how it relates to cycling performance to realise this. 

_Effective _use of power meter data is, quite simply, a different paradigm. But there are those that will cling to the (false) security blanket of HR. That's probably because HR is pretty simple and there's not much to it, even though many try to attritbute more to it than they actually should (often akin to reading tea leaves).

As an example, have a look at those HR v Power charts I posted earlier. Anyone with an eye for this will notice the looser relationship when plotting HR vs Normalised Power than vs Average Power. 

Yet Normalised Power is a far more useful metric than average power since it accounts for both the variability of effort as well as the curvlinear relationship between intensity and strain. HR does neither very well (yet this is a basic fundamental in the physiology of training and racing), but unlesss you begin to understand the fundamentals of what power data is telling us, the debate is pretty pointless.

It's a case of, you don't know what you don't know.

This isn't an either/or scenario. If you don't have power, then HR is helpful.

And if you must cling on to HR information, well every power meter has an HRM built in. Personally I stopped wearing the strap years ago.


----------



## iliveonnitro

aussiebullet said:


> I'm having the opposite problem here, need to get up early and train to beat the heat.
> 
> Me hates summer :arf: Luv's winter, spring and autumn though :9:


I'm jealous of you in Dec, half of Jan, Feb, and half of March.

The other time, I'm also enjoying winter...in a warmer state.


----------



## Fredrico

*An order of magnitude, eh?*



Alex_Simmons/RST said:


> ,,,,Yet Normalised Power is a far more useful metric than average power since it accounts for both the variability of effort as well as the curvlinear relationship between intensity and strain. HR does neither very well (yet this is a basic fundamental in the physiology of training and racing), but unlesss you begin to understand the fundamentals of what power data is telling us, the debate is pretty pointless.
> 
> It's a case of, you don't know what you don't know.


You got that right. Please give me credit for at least beginning to understand what power is, I've been riding for over 25 years. FWIW, I leave my HRM at home most of the time, too. I'd probably do the same with a power meter, once the novelty is worn off.

You may convince me otherwise, though. What's normalized power? Please explain what "curvilinear relationship between intensity and strain" is?


----------



## Fredrico

*I'm going South.*



aussiebullet said:


> I'm having the opposite problem here, need to get up early and train to beat the heat.
> 
> Me hates summer :arf: Luv's winter, spring and autumn though :9:


Lived in sunny Texas during the 90s. Now, stuck just outside DC, snow, freezing temps, I know why Lance has a house in Austin. Heat never bothers me. Of course, I'm probably wimping along under 200 watts.


----------



## aussiebullet

.
Getting too hot here now, forcast for friday onwards is 100, 105, 107, 110, 103.
Heading to the alps first thing in the morning to camp for a week to get in hours of endless climbing at a much, much cooler temp but most importantly some decent sleep in cooler weather, think l''ll leave the HRM at home too, he he!!

But the p/meter can come along for the ride WEEEeeee!!!!


----------



## Alex_Simmons/RST

Fredrico said:


> You got that right. Please give me credit for at least beginning to understand what power is, I've been riding for over 25 years. FWIW, I leave my HRM at home most of the time, too. I'd probably do the same with a power meter, once the novelty is worn off.
> 
> You may convince me otherwise, though.


I meant it in a fun "Donald Rumsfeld" kind of way:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_RpSv3HjpEw

I' m wondering what my "unknown unknowns" are. They must be plenty of them.  



Fredrico said:


> What's normalized power? Please explain what "curvilinear relationship between intensity and strain" is?


http://home.trainingpeaks.com/artic...r-intensity-factor-training-stress-score.aspx


----------



## Fredrico

*Appreciate the info.*



Alex_Simmons/RST said:


> I meant it in a fun "Donald Rumsfeld" kind of way:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_RpSv3HjpEw
> 
> I' m wondering what my "unknown unknowns" are. They must be plenty of them.
> 
> 
> http://home.trainingpeaks.com/artic...r-intensity-factor-training-stress-score.aspx


Reading the essay by Dr. Coggins, I'm reminded how familiar it all is. In different terms, he's describing what coaches back to Eddy B have described, and every rider who has tried racing has experienced. They just didn't have a way to quantify it like today's power measuring devices. Now a racer can quantify "over trained," whereas before he had to go by feel, or noticing he can't get his heart rate up very high, or feeling dead in the legs. 

Interval training is still the preferred method of increasing performance, from what I can gather, whether quantified with power meters, speedometers and HRMs, or timing over a prescribed course with a stop watch.

But now ya got me interested. I have to read up on this new technology. Thanks for the heads up. :thumbsup:


----------



## asgelle

Fredrico said:


> Reading the essay by Dr. Coggins,...


You might want to read it again. I suspect there's a lot you're missing.


----------



## Fredrico

*In time, son.*



asgelle said:


> You might want to read it again. I suspect there's a lot you're missing.


But if you're interested in expanding your thoughts here, feel free. I'm all ears. :biggrin5:


----------



## asgelle

Fredrico said:


> But if you're interested in expanding your thoughts here, feel free. I'm all ears. :biggrin5:


I just figure if you can't get the author's name right, there's probably a lot in the text you're also not getting.


----------



## Fredrico

*Hey,man....*



asgelle said:


> I just figure if you can't get the author's name right, there's probably a lot in the text you're also not getting.


That's a pretty lame comeback. :eek6: Ok, smart a$$, Dr. Coggan, G, A, N. :frown2:


----------



## asgelle

Fredrico said:


> That's a pretty lame comeback. :eek6: Ok, smart a$$, Dr. Coggan, G, A, N. :frown2:


See, that wasn't so bad. It's not that much harder to get it right than it is to get it wrong (something to think about for other applications, too).


----------



## Fredrico

*Heh, heh.*



asgelle said:


> See, that wasn't so bad. It's not that much harder to get it right than it is to get it wrong (something to think about for other applications, too).


It's just that when power meters came out, riders were using them for very specific training, and not all the time. They were an addition to HRMs, speedometers, and interval programs, and still are. What fun is it to throw away all those other tools, and become a slave to watts? :frown2:

But, fine, no need to waste your efforts on a skeptical non-believer. Thanks for nothing of substance, and I'll be paying attention now, as I wasn't before. I just can't wait til Spring, damn it! Might even get one a them newfangled gadgets.

Stay warm. Ride hard.


----------



## iliveonnitro

Fredrico said:


> It's just that when power meters came out, riders were using them for very specific training, and not all the time. They were an addition to HRMs, speedometers, and interval programs, and still are. What fun is it to throw away all those other tools, and become a slave to watts? :frown2:


1. For who, and what makes you think this is the preferred method?
2. Why would you be any more of a slave to a PM than to a HRM?


----------



## Fredrico

iliveonnitro said:


> 1. For who, and what makes you think this is the preferred method?
> 2. Why would you be any more of a slave to a PM than to a HRM?


If you mean power meters, many respondents in this thread are saying they've given up their HRMs, saying they're now redundant, or obsolete, inaccurate, misleading, and prefer power meters, hands down.

As I said above, I leave my HRM home most of the time, because I know what my heart rate is at aerobic pace, often don't care what it is, and sometime just prefer to ride by feel. I leave the speedometer on the bike for mileage information, to determine maintenance intervals. Once in awhile its nice to check overall fitness, and the HRM gives me very good information about that, as would a PM. But I'm probably butting into a forum I have no business in. :biggrin5:

This being a coaching forum, PMs are surely a valuable feedback device for training, and as has been demonstrated by Alex and others, more precise than HRMs. But they're apples and oranges. One doesn't necessarily have to eliminate the other, as the more strident respondents have suggested.


----------



## Undecided

Fredrico said:


> If you mean power meters, many respondents in this thread are saying they've given up their HRMs, saying they're now redundant, or obsolete, inaccurate, misleading, and prefer power meters, hands down.
> 
> As I said above, I leave my HRM home most of the time, because I know what my heart rate is at aerobic pace, often don't care what it is, and sometime just prefer to ride by feel. I leave the speedometer on the bike for mileage information, to determine maintenance intervals. Once in awhile its nice to check overall fitness, and the HRM gives me very good information about that, as would a PM. But I'm probably butting into a forum I have no business in. :biggrin5:
> http://forums.roadbikereview.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=2564884
> This being a coaching forum, PMs are surely a valuable feedback device for training, and as has been demonstrated by Alex and others, more precise than HRMs. But they're apples and oranges. One doesn't necessarily have to eliminate the other, as the more strident respondents have suggested.


I don't think it's a question of "precision," as each tool measures what it measures with very high accuracy. Even if they're "apples and oranges," that doesn't preclude answering the original question in the negative. For some recipes, you just don't need any oranges.

Alex, at least, stayed very focused on the question in the title (or at least some logical interpretation of the question in the title) and actually made a case. His "opponents" offered up a raft of examples of the common types of logical fallacy, including asserting red herrings, addressing straw-man arguments and pleading for the middle ground. Certainly some other posters drifted on the other side, too. I would suggest that you just focus on what Alex wrote in his various responses to the core question and ignore the distractions.


----------



## iliveonnitro

Fredrico said:


> If you mean power meters, many respondents in this thread are saying they've given up their HRMs, saying they're now redundant, or obsolete, inaccurate, misleading, and prefer power meters, hands down.
> 
> As I said above, I leave my HRM home most of the time, because I know what my heart rate is at aerobic pace, often don't care what it is, and sometime just prefer to ride by feel. I leave the speedometer on the bike for mileage information, to determine maintenance intervals. Once in awhile its nice to check overall fitness, and the HRM gives me very good information about that, as would a PM. But I'm probably butting into a forum I have no business in. :biggrin5:
> 
> This being a coaching forum, PMs are surely a valuable feedback device for training, and as has been demonstrated by Alex and others, more precise than HRMs. But they're apples and oranges. One doesn't necessarily have to eliminate the other, as the more strident respondents have suggested.


No, I was referring to his thoughts on a HRM, not a PM.


----------



## Fredrico

*Who'se thoughts, mine?*



iliveonnitro said:


> No, I was referring to his thoughts on a HRM, not a PM.


HRMs are simple instruments that measure heart beats. How well that information is used is entirely up to the rider. If a rider says, "Forget it," and leaves the transmitter chest strap home, fine. I do it all the time, and I don't even have a PM! :wink:

Seriously, I respect what Alex has said and the reasons, yet still not convinced HR data, a component of PMs, is irrelevant. Or to use the metaphor above, why should you throw away the orange? Immediate power output is one very useful data set, heart rate another, speed and elapsed time another. So far, nobody has made a satisfactory argument that training for overall fitness should concentrate only on how many watts you're getting out of the rear wheel at any given instance..  That's what I'd like to hear more about.


----------



## asgelle

Fredrico said:


> So far, nobody has made a satisfactory argument that training for overall fitness should concentrate only on how many watts you're getting out of the rear wheel at any given instance.


That's true, and most of the experienced power meter users would not accept that idea. However, the idea that power data should be supplemented does not imply that the additional data should be heart rate. RPE is a much better choice as it integrates all physiological strain on the rider rather than just the single metric of heart rate.

But if you're serious about learning about this subject, I suggest you subscribe to the wattage group on Google. This topic, and many others, has been covered thoroughly there.


----------



## aussiebullet

Fredrico said:


> HRMs are simple instruments that measure heart beats. How well that information is used is entirely up to the rider. If a rider says, "Forget it," and leaves the transmitter chest strap home, fine. I do it all the time, and I don't even have a PM! :wink:
> 
> Seriously, I respect what Alex has said and the reasons, yet still not convinced HR data, a component of PMs, is irrelevant. Or to use the metaphor above, why should you throw away the orange? Immediate power output is one very useful data set, heart rate another, speed and elapsed time another. So far, nobody has made a satisfactory argument that training for overall fitness should concentrate only on how many watts you're getting out of the rear wheel at any given instance..  That's what I'd like to hear more about.



So just go out and try both together for yourself for a couple of years and make your own mind up, if your in this game (endurance cycling) then your in it for the long haul and the more data and reference points your have to look back on (A races or unexpected peaks in fitness) the more you can refine your training.
My training looks nothing like it did 2yrs ago and is night and day different to 5yrs ago but my favourite training playgrounds and loops are still my favourite's. 
FWIW l found my HRM to be hindersome pretty much on my first real training session, l have used it a handful of times since in last few years and found it to be just as annoying, even with a better understanding of my fitness and limmits with the use of a pm and the software that is available with it the HR data is never consistant as there is always something that bumps it around even on loops l have trained on for 10yrs, it's just a down right pain in the butt, 
but you may still find it useful even if you don't have it visable to galance at it in training and racing but be able go back and analise both HR and power data after your sessions.
Just my 2c.


----------



## Alex_Simmons/RST

asgelle said:


> That's true, and most of the experienced power meter users would not accept that idea. *However, the idea that power data should be supplemented does not imply that the additional data should be heart rate. RPE is a much better choice as it integrates all physiological strain on the rider rather than just the single metric of heart rate*.
> 
> But if you're serious about learning about this subject, I suggest you subscribe to the wattage group on Google. This topic, and many others, has been covered thoroughly there.


+1
...


----------



## Fredrico

asgelle said:


> That's true, and most of the experienced power meter users would not accept that idea. However, the idea that power data should be supplemented does not imply that the additional data should be heart rate. RPE is a much better choice as it integrates all physiological strain on the rider rather than just the single metric of heart rate.
> 
> But if you're serious about learning about this subject, I suggest you subscribe to the wattage group on Google. This topic, and many others, has been covered thoroughly there.


"Rate of Perceived exertion".....hmm, how hard do I feel I'm working? :idea: Have to agree, it isn't always synchronous with heat rate, but with me, its always within 10 bpm. Once in a while, like during an all out effort, I might be surprised that its 20 bpm faster than perceived, and on another day, I can't get it up to where I'd like it, no matter what.

So I'll still put my faith in hard data rather than perceptions, which can be as misleading as heart rates, with respect to actual power transferred measurable in watts. But this has been a valuable discussion. Now, as you suggest, I should scare up a PM to see what everyone's talking about. Thanks to all! :thumbsup: Ride hard!


----------

