HR Training + Power Training

This is where PE is so very important. If his PE was stable but power output was higher than there is probably a gain of fitness. The higher HR could be a factor of many things. Dehydradtion, lots of caffeine, a overall excited state, and many other factors. I would guess that probabaly in the situation above the rider started training to raise FTP from a detrained state. His VO2 max increased but more importantly his lactate threshold increased (% of VO2 max that can be sustained). Thus the higher HR for same level of PE. The opposite happens to me after a extended rest period. My sustained power goes down while my sustainable HR goes up. This shows me that VO2 max has decreased due to the lack of high intensity work.

Quoted post said:

Originally Posted by Cyclist101 [IMG]/img/forum/go_quote.gif[/IMG]...However HR is ... is widely accepted as an almost perfect indicator...

Your confusion is understandable if you start with the premise above. HR is relatively easy to measure but it's a response to the stress you place on your system while exercising, not a direct reflection of that stress itself. It's far for an 'almost perfect indicator' of training stress as it's influenced by many things as rbarker indicates above.

Here's an interesting plot of HR vs. power for a cyclist riding both indoors on a trainer and outdoors that Dr. Coggan included in his contribution to the USAC coaching manual:
[IMG]cyclingforums.com500Open ↗[/IMG]

Heart rate and power track pretty nicely during controlled indoor workouts on the cycling ergometer, but take a look at how much variation in HR there is when riding outdoors at the same power. For instance, for this athlete there was roughly a 20 bpm HR range for given power output when riding at steady powers between 200 and 300 watts. The point is that HR varies quite a bit under real world riding conditions for the same power output and isn't the best direct measure of exercise intensity. If on a given ride your HR is 10 bpm above or below what you experienced on another ride then you could just be viewing day to day variations and not necessarily observing any real changes in fitness.

But the bottom line in the example you posted above is that the athlete was able to sustain higher power for substantial durations. In the end that's the kind of fitness that we care about. Races are won by going faster and in addition to riding and drafting skills that means the ability to sustain higher power to the pedals not having a lower or higher HR. The athlete whose data you posted showed a 7% improvement in sustainable power for 20 minutes that translates almost directly to riding 7% faster up a sufficiently steep hill assuming their weight didn't change between tests. How fast you ride in time trial or hill climb situations where drafting isn't a factor is directly tied to your sustainable power and not what your heart has to do to sustain that power. Sure, it's possible the athlete was new to training and just didn't try hard enough in the first test. That certainly happens as folks figure out what they're capable of but over time increases in sustainable power for durations as long as 20 minutes or more are very good indications of a rider's capabilities and their aerobic (metabolic) fitness regardless of how their HR responds during a given testing session.

FWIW I trained with HR monitors for many years and really believed in HR as a basis for measuring exercise intensity. It took me a long time to let go of my preconceived notions concerning HR after I transitioned to training with power. After collecting both HR and power data for more than a year I realized that more often than not the HR data wasn't helping me and in many cases was setting artificial limits to my rides on those days when HR was higher than normal. It wasn't easy to let go of long held notions but my training and racing improved dramatically when I started doing my rides for the best sustainable power determined by duration of ride or duration of interval rather than a particular HR target range. I'll go out with rough minimum power targets for the system I want to work and the duration I intend to ride for either intervals or the entire ride and then just ride. If I feel great I don't hesitate to sustain more power as long as I can finish the efforts and the overall workout. On days when the legs don't have it I back off a level and try for a longer easier session or if that's not happening I just go home and get more rest. I don't pay attention to my heart rate while I ride and tune into how I feel and whether I can manage more or need to tune it down a notch and then review power data when I get home to see how well I accomplished my goals and to help plan future workouts. My FTP has climbed substantially with that approach and I don't really care if my heart is beating faster or slower as I churn out more watts in my races.

Anyway, getting back to your question

Quoted post said:

...Now i thought the whole point of training is to increase power produced at various Heart Rate Intensities...

No, the whole point of training is to be able to sustain more power for durations of interest. No one measures your HR at the end of a time trial before awarding prizes, all that matters is your time which is directly tied to sustained power regardless of heart rate. If one result of your training is that you tend to sustain higher average heart rates, then so be it that's not typical as most folks experience increases in heart stroke volume that result in lower heart rates for a given sub maximal intensity as a result of their training but either way the goal is sustainable power, not power to heart rate ratio.

From an endurance training standpoint, the two big goals as rbarker pointed out are increasing VO2 Max or maximal oxygen utilization rate and increasing the percentage of VO2 Max you can sustain for long durations (LT). The first is somewhat trainable and the second is highly trainable.

-Dave

Thanks for the response Dave, definatly makes it more clear [IMG]/img/vbsmilies/smilies/smile.gif[/IMG]
Mainly where the point was coming from is that i know my training has given me the ability to hold and produce high power outputs at lower HR values, and then consequently high power outputs at similar heart rate values. Therefore this has resulted in me being able to maintain a specific pace (whether it be in a tough club run or a race) without having to go as deep into an anaerobic state.
However i suppose an FTP test is all about your maximal power output, therefore as you can't produce anymore power, your HR value is irrelevant.

Quoted post said:

Originally Posted by Cyclist101 [IMG]/img/forum/go_quote.gif[/IMG]
Furthermore after reading many articles in various forums, including this one, i discovered that actually many riders don't train with a HRM at all and actually just base there training on power produced. So how do you know the actual intensity of what your working at, because i know from my training that you might think your going max-effort one day but actually your a bit below par from a previous days effort as the HR shows.
Now i thought the whole point of training is to increase power produced at various Heart Rate Intensities so you become more efficient in the various intensity zones (aerobic, anaerobic etc). So how can you achieve this if you don't train with a HRM, and if you do you just completely disregard the figures?

Here's a copy of my thoughts on HR + Power I posted here:
http://cyclecoach.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=166#p166

When out training, the most important thing from a fitness development point of view is the intensity of effort as, along with duration, this is what dictates the nature and speed of desirable physiological changes. That's why as coaches we provide plans that prescribe training in terms of intensity (and duration of course). It might be a general level of intensity and/or include specific intensities during a part of a ride (e.g. intervals).

To help us with that, we look for ways to provide guidance on how to get the intensity/effort at the intended level. There are many ways to measure or indicate intensity, e.g. O2 utilisation, speed, power, blood lactate levels, heart rate response, rating of perceived exertion.

Some are direct (speed, power, O2 utilisation), some are response indicators (HR, blood lactate) and some subjective (perceived exertion). Some are highly variable depending on conditions (speed) and some are not all that practical outside of a laboratory setting (O2 utilisation, blood lactate levels).

Hence we are left with measures that are available to most of us when out riding a bike, i.e. RPE, HR & power.

The best is an objective and direct measure that is practical - and the only tool that fits that description is a power meter. It is, by far, the best tool for this purpose.

Power is also a direct measure of fitness (sustainable power over given durations). Coupled with RPE, it is a valuable guide to form.

Where power measurement is not available, then HR can be a useful guide, particularly for general aerobic level riding (which is the bulk of what endurance cyclists do). All that is needed is a reasonable understanding of the limitations of HR when used in this manner. Some of the limitations of HR include:
- impact of cardiac drift
- lag time with HR response
- utility declines as intensity rises, especially at supra-threshold levels
- utility declines when effort level is highly variable
- subject to daily fluctuations due to many factors other than how hard one is pedaling
- it is not a measure of fitness

However when you have power meter then, at best, HR is redundant.

Alex,
Read your post above and some of your blog.
I believe it is best to measure power on the 'turbo' trainer.
However, each is set so differently.
Some I can ride at 50 kph easily.
The Kinetic is tough to beat.
Measuring power is the key, not heart rate.
Heart rate is good for over extending, over training, and signs of illness.

I somehow think Alex knows that.

Quoted post said:

Originally Posted by daveryanwyoming [IMG]/img/forum/go_quote.gif[/IMG]
[IMG]cyclingforums.com500Open ↗[/IMG]

that's a nice graph. It explains why my HRs are a bit lower indoors while PE stays the same.

Quoted post said:

Originally Posted by TShame [IMG]/img/forum/go_quote.gif[/IMG]

Alex,
Read your post above and some of your blog.
I believe it is best to measure power on the 'turbo' trainer.
However, each is set so differently.
Some I can ride at 50 kph easily.
The Kinetic is tough to beat.
Measuring power is the key, not heart rate.
Heart rate is good for over extending, over training, and signs of illness.

It's best to measure power with an accurate power meter.

"it's best to measure power with an accurate power meter."

Well, that goes without saying. Why would anyone use an inaccurate one?
Alex, you estimated watts on the Masters hour ride, correct. It seemed very low estimate.
Was he a very small rider? (I was surprised when I met with Chris Boardman. I understand why Indurain needed so much more power in his efforts.)

The Kinetic is accurately tuned. However, only the wattage is accurate, not necessarily the corresponding speed.
Riding a road bike compared to an aero track bike with disc wheels is a huge variant.
However, if one knows an accurate power test from the indoor trainer with a corresponding outdoor result, a repeat test that shows increased wattage should result in faster outdoor times. (wind being the main variant.)
I did this recently working on my 10 mile time trial course.
I hope to validate the results on the velodyne and post them.
I think I am one of the few who actually prefers the difficulty and accuracy of the computerized trainer.
But, for me, knowing exactly where I am in terms of overall power, helps me to train for peak results.

Quoted post said:

Originally Posted by TShame [IMG]/img/forum/go_quote.gif[/IMG]

"it's best to measure power with an accurate power meter."

Well, that goes without saying. Why would anyone use an inaccurate one?
Alex, you estimated watts on the Masters hour ride, correct. It seemed very low estimate.
Was he a very small rider? (I was surprised when I met with Chris Boardman. I understand why Indurain needed so much more power in his efforts.)

The Kinetic is accurately tuned. However, only the wattage is accurate, not necessarily the corresponding speed.
Riding a road bike compared to an aero track bike with disc wheels is a huge variant.
However, if one knows an accurate power test from the indoor trainer with a corresponding outdoor result, a repeat test that shows increased wattage should result in faster outdoor times. (wind being the main variant.)
I did this recently working on my 10 mile time trial course.
I hope to validate the results on the velodyne and post them.
I think I am one of the few who actually prefers the difficulty and accuracy of the computerized trainer.
But, for me, knowing exactly where I am in terms of overall power, helps me to train for peak results.

We used a calibrated SRM power meter to record the power produced during the hour record. It was accurate (I perform the calibrations myself) and I made sure of the zero offset setting. He is very aerodynamic (most aero person I've tested). He weighs ~ 60kg.

The Kinetic uses wheel speed to estimate power. If anything that affects wheel speed-power relationship (such as tyre temperature, pressure, press on force) changes, then the KK will provide inconsistent data. And of course it only calculates based on steady state effort and does not account for accelerations/decelerations.