HRMs are least useful when most needed

RapDaddyo said:

I ride with power now, but still look occasionally at my HRM. I have been riding on weekends only for a month, before ramping up my training again for next year. So, I am a bit out of fitness (for me). Today, on my club ride I noticed something interesting about my HRM. When I would go hard for a few minutes (e.g., 100%-120%FT), my HR stayed at the peak level for a long time after I backed off. I'm sure it was much slower to respond to power changes than it was a month ago. And, during my pushes, it didn't respond at all to power changes. But, if I used HRM to manage intensity of effort, the HRM would be most misleading when I need it most (when I am least fit).

[font=Century Gothic]Sounds to me that you learned something from the HR data. in your case HR has told you that your condition is down & recovery is bad. You have not needed to do any tests etc you see it by just looking at the HR data. power is great for pacing & monitoring improvement, HR is good for getting an idea of your general level of stress & the general condition of your body. These are two very different things & you can monitor both. In your example you are looking at HR response & recovery, you have learned that from your HR data that when in condition recovery will be very fast & HR will be responsive to power. Its information that can be useful to know for some riders.[/font]
[font=Century Gothic][/font]
[font=Century Gothic]During the winter many riders spend the vast majority of their training time doing aerobic endurance. HR relative to power is a great way to monitor improvements in form over the weeks & months of the winter when doing aerobic training in zones.[/font]

Phil Stone said:

[font=Century Gothic]Sounds to me that you learned something from the HR data. in your case HR has told you that your condition is down & recovery is bad. You have not needed to do any tests etc you see it by just looking at the HR data. power is great for pacing & monitoring improvement, HR is good for getting an idea of your general level of stress & the general condition of your body. These are two very different things & you can monitor both. In your example you are looking at HR response & recovery, you have learned that from your HR data that when in condition recovery will be very fast & HR will be responsive to power. Its information that can be useful to know for some riders.[/font]

[font=Century Gothic]During the winter many riders spend the vast majority of their training time doing aerobic endurance. HR relative to power is a great way to monitor improvements in form over the weeks & months of the winter when doing aerobic training in zones.[/font]

But, if one has both, as I do, one is not dependent on the HRM for pacing on training rides. I agree that my HRM confirmed what I already knew, that I have detrained in the last month. But, I would have also seen that in terms of my ability to sustain a given power for a given duration. So, I wouldn't agree that my HRM told me something that I couldn't find out with my PM alone. The main point of my post is addressed to those who train by HRM and not those who have both power and HRM. If I were trying to do intervals with my HRM only at my present fitness, it would be essentially worthless because it wouldn't reflect changes in my intensity of effort. I could have wandered all over the place today in power and my HRM would have just stayed right where it was, falsely indicating that I was riding at a steady intensity.

RapDaddyo said:

But, if one has both, as I do, one is not dependent on the HRM for pacing on training rides. I agree that my HRM confirmed what I already knew, that I have detrained in the last month. But, I would have also seen that in terms of my ability to sustain a given power for a given duration. So, I wouldn't agree that my HRM told me something that I couldn't find out with my PM alone. The main point of my post is addressed to those who train by HRM and not those who have both power and HRM. If I were trying to do intervals with my HRM only at my present fitness, it would be essentially worthless because it wouldn't reflect changes in my intensity of effort. I could have wandered all over the place today in power and my HRM would have just stayed right where it was, falsely indicating that I was riding at a steady intensity.

Yes you could figure out a vague idea of your condition with a PM if you trained to exhaustion or did a test.(If this is how you want to train during the winter). Its also true that a PM or even speed or cadence are much better ways to pace while doing an interval. A HRM would be better for pacing during a good long aerobic training ride. The HRM data is also useful for determining your recovery so you know when you can start the next interval & have a chance of completing it. A HRM is not a power meter. Its great to have both though! 🙂

Phil Stone said:

Yes you could figure out a vague idea of your condition with a PM if you trained to exhaustion or did a test.

Vague idea? Train to exhaustion? I think testing with a PM is the most valid way to test my fitness. In fact, I think knowing my HR is of no incremental value.

Phil Stone said:

A HRM would be better for pacing during a good long aerobic training ride.

I don't see why.

Phil Stone said:

The HRM data is also useful for determining your recovery so you know when you can start the next interval & have a chance of completing it.

Not for me. My HR recovers too quickly. If I went by HR, I wouldn't complete many interval sets.

RapDaddyo said:

Vague idea? Train to exhaustion? I think testing with a PM is the most valid way to test my fitness. In fact, I think knowing my HR is of no incremental value.

I don't see why.

Not for me. My HR recovers too quickly. If I went by HR, I wouldn't complete many interval sets.

[font=Century Gothic]This is where we all have a 'personal' opinion about what we want to be doing during the winter base period. I do not want to spend my time recovering to do a test. I would rather be out (or in) doing a good long ride. Other riders like testing & doing hard intervals, these riders would be happy with a PM. Personally racing here is hard enough, I do not want any of that kind of punishment now. I can go out ride in zone 2 or 3 with my HRM & watch the power increase over the next 4months or so. If I only had a PM then I would be in the dark as to what zone Im in. Every day feels different, condition changes very fast during this period, its extremely hard to know without testing just what power to start riding at to get the most out of 3hrs. My aerobic HR zones stay fairly static & are therefore ideal for me for pacing with during the winter.[/font]

Phil Stone said:

[font=Century Gothic]This is where we all have a 'personal' opinion about what we want to be doing during the winter base period. I do not want to spend my time recovering to do a test. I would rather be out (or in) doing a good long ride. Other riders like testing & doing hard intervals, these riders would be happy with a PM. Personally racing here is hard enough, I do not want any of that kind of punishment now. I can go out ride in zone 2 or 3 with my HRM & watch the power increase over the next 4months or so. If I only had a PM then I would be in the dark as to what zone Im in. Every day feels different, condition changes very fast during this period, its extremely hard to know without testing just what power to start riding at to get the most out of 3hrs. My aerobic HR zones stay fairly static & are therefore ideal for me for pacing with during the winter.[/font]

I'm not sure how this became a thread on winter base period riding. And I still don't understand what a HRM provides for pacing or fitness testing that is not available with a PM. When you say that if you only had a PM you would be in the dark as to what zone you're in, I guess you mean HR zone, but again I don't think HR zones are very good for training by zone, to attain specific adaptations. In fact, for a zone 2 or 3 ride, I don't think one needs a computer at all -- RPE works fine. The real value of a PM or HRM is when you're riding at higher levels of intensity -- levels 4+. So, I guess we just disagree.

RapDaddyo said:

I'm not sure how this became a thread on winter base period riding. .

[font=Century Gothic]Perhaps because the winter has just started 🙂 ? [/font]
[font=Century Gothic][/font]
[font=Century Gothic]The rest of my comments are based on the latest almost religious trend for riders & some coaches with a financial stake in a power based stress score to start preaching that we do not need a HRM anymore. I have had a Powertap since 1999 I also own a SRM Pro & a Tacx Fortius (Heck I even had the Polar Power sensor for a year) so you can say I'm a real Pro Power rider, I love the power meter. But I would not ditch the HRM yet, its 'some' information about whats going on inside me that I can record while riding. I can not record Perceived excursion. All I know with power info 'only' combined with lots of endurance training is that I 'will 'end up digging myself a hole. training with HR means training with some basic rules that will help me avoid over training. The most basic one is if I can not get into your HR zone then you had better rest. If you have a tough full time job also then this becomes even more important. With power you can always get into the 'zone' & PE is almost always hard to judge at the start of long hard ride.[/font]
[font=Century Gothic][/font]
[font=Century Gothic]combine HR with some hard efforts & i have yet more information that will tell me how fresh i was. Recovery speed & reaction time relative to power will tell me the state of general condition & how far away I am from good form. A higher HR will tell me that on this day I was fresh, a low max HR will say that I was tired & I can do better with some rest. Its all basic info that I would rather have recorded. Especially as I have data going back to the 80s all devoted to me. I know 'me', My HR zones have barely changed over the last years & I never need to take a day or two off to test. [/font]
[font=Century Gothic][/font]
[font=Century Gothic]Its just way too easy to plow into a state of fatigue riding blind with PE alone. A Power based zone is a fixed number based on a performance done when fresh. When training aerobically (which is where 95% of training is done for riders over here in Belgium) its too easy to train when fatigued.[/font]
[font=Century Gothic][/font]
[font=Century Gothic]Ive never used HR for pacing during an interval in the 20years Ive used one as this would be obviously pointless. Intervals in my mind are either anaerobic or at least done at LT. HR would be at or slightly above LT for all the efforts & probably well below LT for the very short intervals. Add to this the fact that HR will take time to climb & you have a very bad practically useless tool for pacing. Which is what you said in your original post. [/font]
[font=Century Gothic][/font]
[font=Century Gothic]I'm a bit fed up with being told that now we have power that those of us that use a HRM are doing something wrong. HR is complicated, there are things like blood pressure that will effect the amount of blood that is going to be pumped with each beat. There are factors that will slightly effect HR but these factors together with the HR info can tell you if these factors were indeed a 'factor' in your performance[/font] 🙂 .

since i got my power meter I use the HRM for only base training (i know for a fact, from my last Vo2 max test, that i burn most fat at 155bpm and I think the BPM number is going to be more permanetly correlated to the fat bump than any power number). And for time trials, where regardless of power output, the point at which i feel like blowing up is reliably found at 92-93% of max HR.

i completely agree that HRM's are useless for interval training, the power->heart rate lag is just huge, moreso when out of shape because of lazy response on the upside and poor recovery on the downside.

actually, maybe there is a valuable use for HRM's in interval traning - to determine length of recovery periods in between intervals. i would theorise that the length of recovery required increases as the rider falls out of shape.

one other thing - although i ride and train predominantly with power I always make a point of putting the HR chest strap on. the ability to chart average power versus average heart rate (a custom chart in cycling peaks) is in my opinion the most valuable thing in the whole process. the good news - my average watts:bpm ratio deinately improving, AND i can identify when it improved the most, and what sort of training I was doing at that time. thinking progressively I can even identify when a given form of trainign has stopped having an impact, then tweak things to get past the plateau.

robkit said:

actually, maybe there is a valuable use for HRM's in interval traning - to determine length of recovery periods in between intervals. i would theorise that the length of recovery required increases as the rider falls out of shape.

Actually, I don't think HR is a good recovery indicator. My HR recovers from almost any intensity and duration in ~90 seconds. If I did a 5min interval at 120%FT, I would need ~5 mins to recover (to NP=FT), yet my HRM would say I have recovered after only 90 seconds. Have you actually tried to use your HRM as an interval recovery barometer? Maybe it's just me, but my HR recovery duration seems to be related only to HR and not interval power and duration as it would need to be.

I am similar in that even though my HR drops to a certain level, I am by no way ready to start another hard effort and will usually wait until 5 minutes is up before starting the next effort.

To extend on this recovery principle, it takes me a long time, like overnight or even 2 days, before I am looking at complete recovery based on resting HR, if I have been doing intensive training or racing. This takes significantly less time after a 2 hr aerobic training ride.
I think that as soon as the heart is put under any period of intensive stress, it acts like a shock wave throughout the body, that takes a lot longer to recover properly, even though the heart itself slows down to what we know as a recovery level. This is possibly due to the fact that it takes longer for the muscle tissue to re-oxygenate than it takes for the heart to slow down.

If this is the case, should the body be allowed to completely re-acclimatise (recover) itself before starting the next intensive effort, for the intensive efforts to be of optimal gain, rather than use heart beat measurement as a rule as to when one is ready?

AndROOb said:

If this is the case, should the body be allowed to completely re-acclimatise (recover) itself before starting the next intensive effort, for the intensive efforts to be of optimal gain, rather than use heart beat measurement as a rule as to when one is ready?

I think Andy Coggan has given us the best recovery benchmark, NP. The issue is, what is the definition of full recovery? Is recovery complete when NP=FT? Is recovery complete when NP<FT, say, 90%FT? So, let's say I do a 8min interval at 120%FT. Recovery to NP=FT would require an equal duration (8min) at P=55%FT. If full recovery is NP<FT, the recovery duration (at the same recovery power) is longer. I think I could complete an interval set if I do the next interval at NP=FT. But, even if I am not very fit my HR would recover to FT within 90 seconds. So, HR is a lousy predictor of recovery. Since one of the objectives of recovery is to be able to complete an interval set, NP works great. Granted, HR is easier and simpler. But, it's misleading, so who cares?

RapDaddyo said:

I think Andy Coggan has given us the best recovery benchmark, NP. The issue is, what is the definition of full recovery? Is recovery complete when NP=FT? Is recovery complete when NP<FT, say, 90%FT? So, let's say I do a 8min interval at 120%FT. Recovery to NP=FT would require an equal duration (8min) at P=55%FT. If full recovery is NP<FT, the recovery duration (at the same recovery power) is longer. I think I could complete an interval set if I do the next interval at NP=FT. But, even if I am not very fit my HR would recover to FT within 90 seconds. So, HR is a lousy predictor of recovery. Since one of the objectives of recovery is to be able to complete an interval set, NP works great. Granted, HR is easier and simpler. But, it's misleading, so who cares?

[font=Century Gothic] When I mentioned using HR to decide on when to make another hard effort I meant not making that effort 'before' HR had dropped. I never talked about the recommended breaks between 'long' intervals etc. You can take as long as you like for a break, heck you could rest all day if you wanted to be sure of completing the next interval. [/font]
[font=Century Gothic][/font]
[font=Century Gothic]Using NP=FT to determine how long to rest obviously is only any use if you decide train for about 1hr & you have total faith in NP. Even then NP is not perfect a rider with very good recovery & anaerobic ability's should be able to produce higher NP=FT doing short intervals then riding sustained. Anyone thats good at crits/fast races & longer track events & sucks at time trials will show you this. NP is a great formula but you must also remember we are all very different.[/font]
[font=Century Gothic][/font]
[font=Century Gothic]I think you will find if the recovery periods are too short HR will become harder & harder to drop to 'pre' interval levels. This adds another reason why HR data can have some post ride use. Perhaps you could have done one more interval or even two?? [/font]

AndROOb said:

should the body be allowed to completely re-acclimatise (recover) itself before starting the next intensive effort, for the intensive efforts to be of optimal gain, rather than use heart beat measurement as a rule as to when one is ready?

[font=Century Gothic]Ive raced for 9years as a first cat on the simple rule of very hard training rides followed by total HR based recovery = sustained improvments with the least ammount of saddle time. [/font]
[font=Century Gothic][/font]
[font=Century Gothic]The simple rule of a good solid training ride every other day will result in constant weekly gains in condition for at least the first 12weeks of training. Its a simple rule that actualy works really well. The key is making sure the rides are stessfull enough to need a day off to recover from or at least hard enough to maintain the gains made. 😉[/font]

Phil Stone said:

[font=Century Gothic]When I mentioned using HR to decide on when to make another hard effort I meant not making that effort 'before' HR had dropped. I never talked about the recommended breaks between 'long' intervals etc. You can take as long as you like for a break, heck you could rest all day if you wanted to be sure of completing the next interval.[/font][font=Verdana]

But, recovering sufficiently is only one of two recovery objectives. The second is recovering only as long as necessary but not longer. Resting all day before the next interval would obviously severely reduce the training time in the beneficial zones. The issue is how much recovery is enough?[/font]

[font=Century Gothic][font=Verdana]

Phil Stone said:

[/font]Using NP=FT to determine how long to rest obviously is only any use if you decide train for about 1hr & you have total faith in NP.[/font][font=Verdana]

FT can be for any duration. I think you are applying FT too strictly. My 2hr FT is obviously different from my 1hr FT. I am using FT to mean my max sustainable power for a given duration. Basically, it's a data point on my power/duration curve. As to faith in NP, I think it is infinitely more valid than HR for predicting when I have recovered sufficiently to do another interval.[/font]
[font=Century Gothic][/font]
[font=Century Gothic][font=Verdana]

Phil Stone said:

[/font]Even then NP is not perfect a rider with very good recovery & anaerobic ability's should be able to produce higher NP=FT doing short intervals then riding sustained. Anyone thats good at crits/fast races & longer track events & sucks at time trials will show you this. NP is a great formula but you must also remember we are all very different.[/font][font=Verdana]

Again, you are defining FT for 1 hr duration only. Of course we are all different, reflected in our relative FTs. NP makes no assumption about what your FT is, only the relative weighting of power above and below FT (actually throughout the power range).[/font]
[font=Century Gothic][/font]
[font=Century Gothic][font=Verdana]

Phil Stone said:

[/font]I think you will find if the recovery periods are too short HR will become harder & harder to drop to 'pre' interval levels. This adds another reason why HR data can have some post ride use. Perhaps you could have done one more interval or even two?? [/font]

If I recover only to NP=FT, I don't agree that I could do more intervals (unless my FT is wrong).

[font=Century Gothic]Sorry I did not realise you meant using the mean max curve. This is indeed a good/interesting way of doing your intervals if you are taking time to figure out all this prior to training. It kind of shows again how good power is for intervals (I should do some one day!) .[/font]

Phil Stone said:

[font=Century Gothic]Sorry I did not realise you meant using the mean max curve. This is indeed a good/interesting way of doing your intervals if you are taking time to figure out all this prior to training. It kind of shows again how good power is for intervals (I should do some one day!) .[/font]

Yes, that's what I do. At the moment, I have to estimate my recovery time. I usually use 1:1 for intervals at 110%FT-120%FT and 0.5:1 for intervals at 100%FT-110%FT, with recovery at ~55%FT. I usually do my high-intensity work as part of a ride on a rolling course with a couple of major climbs (3.3mi and 4.5mi). I like to distribute my high-intensity work throughout the ride, taking advantage of upgrades where possible for intervals and downgrades for recoveries. At the moment, I have to estimate the durations, but I have landmark triggers for pushes and recoveries. So, it's one big variable pace ride with targets for minutes by training level. And, I have nice views.

Personally, I still think that HRM's are useful and have their place. The overreliance on any single tool is not going to yeild the best results, whether it's an HRM, power meter, Borg Scale or whatever.

HRMs are least useful when most needed - it really sucked when I lost my power data from the only race I raced this year becuase my Polar Power Output sensor went out of alignment.

Rapdaddyo - you used to do crazy miles and training. Maybe you should do 1 ride on Wednesday then a weekend ride. That's what I'm doing as I'm scaling back for winter. Can you give us stats on how your performance is decreasing from doing just 1 ride per week? - Like avg speed per HR comparisons.

Are you burning out from training too much?

JTE83 said:

Rapdaddyo - you used to do crazy miles and training. Maybe you should do 1 ride on Wednesday then a weekend ride. That's what I'm doing as I'm scaling back for winter. Can you give us stats on how your performance is decreasing from doing just 1 ride per week? - Like avg speed per HR comparisons. Are you burning out from training too much?

Actually, I have been doing only weekend rides (~35mi Sat & Sun) since 10/2, intentionally. I wanted a little break before ramping up my training schedule for next spring. But, I have noticed very little decline in performance. I can still maintain about the same power levels, but my HR is higher and lags at the top after I back off. And, I feel a little more out of breath after ~5mins at 120%FT. Actually, my average power numbers per ride have gone up because I want to get more out of each ride in high-intensity work. When I was on my bike 7 days a week, I always knew I had lots of time for high-intensity work, so I didn't worry about getting in high-intensity work on any single ride. Beginning 11/1, I'm going to begin increasing my time on the bike, probably initially going to 4 rides/wk and then adding 1 ride/wk until I am back to 7x/wk. I don't feel burned out in any way, I've just been focusing on a project and have welcomed the extra morning work time. You will eventually see the results of my efforts.