HR vs Power

roadster99 said:

Came across this:

bicycling.com0,6610,s1 1 8 18611 1,00.htmlOpen ↗

Not sure how many of you read Bicycling Magazine, but I read this article recently. HR vs Power. In the article, according to "scientific research" performed by the Sport Science Institute of South Africa, HR seems to have an advantage. Any comments or opinions on this? I know a lot of you have some decent knowledge. Care to throw in some input? I know training with power is the trend now. I personally have a PT and love it. Maybe I'll start paying more attention to my HR. Cross reference it with my power readings or something.

If that's the one that was picked apart at wattage recently, then concluding that the HR "method" is better than the power "method", even though long TT performance was better (although not significantly) in the power "method" group is a rather strange conclusion.

Way too many uncontrolled variables for anyone to read much into it.

I may be naive but I just feel that the obvious reason to train with a powermeter is because it gives you constant, reliable feedback (most of the time). Meaning that if I did 180 watts today for an hour and did 200 watts for an hour in a couple weeks, I have improved. This constant info gives you a way to build a reliable training program. The powermeter to me is like a dumbbell meaning 45lbs is 45lbs is 45lbs...you need a constant to know you are getting better and to train with.

-js

roadster99 said:

Came across this:

bicycling.com0,6610,s1 1 8 18611 1,00.htmlOpen ↗

Not sure how many of you read Bicycling Magazine, but I read this article recently. HR vs Power. In the article, according to "scientific research" performed by the Sport Science Institute of South Africa, HR seems to have an advantage. Any comments or opinions on this? I know a lot of you have some decent knowledge. Care to throw in some input? I know training with power is the trend now. I personally have a PT and love it. Maybe I'll start paying more attention to my HR. Cross reference it with my power readings or something.

well, I wouldn't say naive. I feel the same way that both you and Alex feel. I always thought being able to physically see what it was I was exactly doing is so much more important than not knowing. Much more valueable. I'm not sure how conclusive this article was which was why I asked for opinions. My conclusion would be that, if you can afford a power meter, get it. If not, HR monitoring works well, you just don't really know how hard you're really going. You also can't track progress.

I also had a thought. As the body fatigues after hours of riding, does heart rate slowly inch upward? Or does it stay constant with power? For example, let's say I've ridden 3 hours already. Would my HR be similar at 250W now as it was when I first started riding 3 hours ago?

roadster99 said:

I also had a thought. As the body fatigues after hours of riding, does heart rate slowly inch upward? Or does it stay constant with power? For example, let's say I've ridden 3 hours already. Would my HR be similar at 250W now as it was when I first started riding 3 hours ago?

I think this is actually the issue with training with HR, everyone is different so there is no steadfast rule of how your HR would react.

-js

roadster99 said:

well, I wouldn't say naive. I feel the same way that both you and Alex feel. I always thought being able to physically see what it was I was exactly doing is so much more important than not knowing. Much more valueable. I'm not sure how conclusive this article was which was why I asked for opinions. My conclusion would be that, if you can afford a power meter, get it. If not, HR monitoring works well, you just don't really know how hard you're really going. You also can't track progress.

I also had a thought. As the body fatigues after hours of riding, does heart rate slowly inch upward? Or does it stay constant with power? For example, let's say I've ridden 3 hours already. Would my HR be similar at 250W now as it was when I first started riding 3 hours ago?

During very solid to hard efforts at quasi steady state power, HR will tend to drift higher.

However, if fatigued over a longer time frame, HR can be suppressed.

I've never understood the "either-or" nature of this issue. Seems to me any attempt at comparing "HR vs PM training" is apples-to-oranges. A PM may enable training at a consistent and known load, and make it easy to gauge progress, but it doesn't reveal a thing about an individual's response to that load, ie, the intensity of the training effort. Whether you train with a PM, HRM, RPE, or all-of-the-above, seems to me that the fundemental questions of how hard to train and how often still need answering.

roadster99 said:

I'm not sure how conclusive this article was which was why I asked for opinions. My conclusion would be that, if you can afford a power meter, get it. If not, HR monitoring works well....

I'd say that's a pretty fair summary of most any article in that magazine, ie, if you can afford this thing, then buy it. If not, then buy something else.... preferably something advertised in one of our other 'reviews.'

Alex Simmons said:

During very solid to hard efforts at quasi steady state power, HR will tend to drift higher.

Word. In the runner's/triathlete's world, they call it cardiac drift.

I've been on the trainer at a fixed cadence, fixed gear ratio (so essentially fixed power) for a 50 min LT effort, and my HR reading had drifted up almost 10 beats from where it was at the first 10 min.

roadster99 said:

My conclusion would be that, if you can afford a power meter, get it. If not, HR monitoring works well, you just don't really know how hard you're really going. You also can't track progress.

LOL. It seems to me that the metric of most interest is speed and not power. While one may not know "how hard" one is "really" going without a PM, certainly one knows how fast one is going and one can certainly track progress through repeated time-trial efforts (or the time necessary to complete one's usual training loop), the only metric that really counts - how FAST one can go on a bicycle.

Alex Simmons said:

During very solid to hard efforts at quasi steady state power, HR will tend to drift higher.

During very solid to hard efforts at Quasi steady state efforts (HR), power will tend to drift lower.

Fday said:

During very solid to hard efforts at Quasi steady state efforts (HR), power will tend to drift lower.

Heh. So now the body's response is the independent variable, while output is dependent upon it? That's some interesting new math.

Fday said:

LOL. It seems to me that the metric of most interest is speed and not power. While one may not know "how hard" one is "really" going without a PM, certainly one knows how fast one is going and one can certainly track progress through repeated time-trial efforts (or the time necessary to complete one's usual training loop), the only metric that really counts - how FAST one can go on a bicycle.

Well in a TT, riding in such a manner that causes power to fade through the course of the effort (such as would happen if holding a steady HR) is sub-optimal from a fastest time POV.

Thanks for all the input! Didn't think I would get this sort of response. Enjoying the conversation.

Fday said:

LOL. It seems to me that the metric of most interest is speed and not power. While one may not know "how hard" one is "really" going without a PM, certainly one knows how fast one is going and one can certainly track progress through repeated time-trial efforts (or the time necessary to complete one's usual training loop), the only metric that really counts - how FAST one can go on a bicycle.

The limitation to that approach, of course, is that environmental conditions can vary, thus obscuring any changes in fitness.

IMHO I think targeting L4 would become a problem if you kept HR steady. Spending the early part of the workout at threshold or above would cut the duration way down.

Fday said:

During very solid to hard efforts at Quasi steady state efforts (HR), power will tend to drift lower.

Alex Simmons said:

Well in a TT, riding in such a manner that causes power to fade through the course of the effort (such as would happen if holding a steady HR) is sub-optimal from a fastest time POV.

agreed. This is something marathon runners take into account, and a big factor with why the pro's do TT's based on a combination of HR, power, and *percieved effort*. That last one I think brings it all together. You can try to ride a TT by the numbers, but if you've done 1/2 of a 40k TT and are feeling super fresh and think you could go a little faster, even though you're riding right at your TT pace watts/HR you have to be willing to change your plan. The body's way too complex to train only with one method. Just use them all and look at them all, and interpret the data scientifically.

I've had days when I do sprint training where every 20 sec max effort my HR jumps right up to it's max, and days where it doesn't even break the LT threshold for the same effort. If you're gonna structure a ride around a specific goal, be it wattage, or HR, just keep your plan a little bit flexible for variations in your body on that specific day, and adjust as necessary.

dhk2 said:

Whether you train with a PM, HRM, RPE, or all-of-the-above, seems to me that the fundamental questions of how hard to train and how often still need answering.

+100....hence why we have the forums and why we have coaches....this liking any type of training IMHO is individual and you will need to learn your body.

This is why I never understand why we argue so much over PM vs HR. It really makes no sense to me as what does matter is your training program which we tend not to talk about. The PM is easily superior because of its steady output but really does not mean I will be a better cyclist than someone who does not train with it. It is just a measuring device...what matters is how I use it!

jsirabella said:

+100....hence why we have the forums and why we have coaches....this liking any type of training IMHO is individual and you will need to learn your body.

This is why I never understand why we argue so much over PM vs HR. It really makes no sense to me as what does matter is your training program which we tend not to talk about. The PM is easily superior because of its steady output but really does not mean I will be a better cyclist than someone who does not train with it. It is just a measuring device...what matters is how I use it!

I've always thought that following just one set of numbers, be it power or heart rate, is a little silly if both are readily available on the computer mounted on your handlebars...

I wonder if there's been a study on how many atheletes are losing performance due to spending too many hours infront of a computer wondering how to make sense of all this data and looking for some hidden and undiscovered secret, instead of going to bed at a descent hour and getting a good nights kip?

beison said:

This is something marathon runners take into account

Really? The last time I looked, the most hi-tech thing that Gebrselassie used during racing/training was his cotton socks... 😉

roadster99 said:

Came across this:

bicycling.com0,6610,s1 1 8 18611 1,00.htmlOpen ↗

Not sure how many of you read Bicycling Magazine, but I read this article recently. HR vs Power. In the article, according to "scientific research" performed by the Sport Science Institute of South Africa, HR seems to have an advantage. Any comments or opinions on this? I know a lot of you have some decent knowledge. Care to throw in some input? I know training with power is the trend now. I personally have a PT and love it. Maybe I'll start paying more attention to my HR. Cross reference it with my power readings or something.

cyclingforums.comt 460474 15 32.htmlOpen ↗