Campag4life

I think you captured my counterpoint. Its clear more information is better and that would include training with both power and heart rate to assess this symbiotic relationship. I understand the good points that Drew made but also believe the flip side of training say with power without HR is perhaps as equally misleading.

Can you explain the dynamic of backing off on power if your HR is low relative to the watts you are training to? It seems somewhat counter intuitive. Isn't the goal of improved fitness to lower HR for a given wattage and therefore if your HR is tracking low for a given wattage, why wouldn't there be more room to run and go for it under this circumstance?

Also can you describe what is the difference between little/no HR drift and what you consider too much HR drift?

Thanks

svtmike

When I am really fatigued, my heart rate will be very low for a given wattage, and at the same time the effort will feel much harder than it should (RPE is too high). This often goes along with feeling like I'm breathing much too raggedly for a given HR. That's a sure sign that I need a recovery or rest day.

chaadster

Who trains with power but without HR? "Training with power" means using HR; it's not proper any other way. The discussion cannot be framed as either heart rate or power. You can ask the question whether HR or power guides your training regimen and goals, but HR is never off the table. It's a critical element of power based training.

Campag4life

Actually chad, you frame my question perfectly. Who trains with power and without a companion HRM? Probably a very small sample of riders because of reasons stated. But conversely, how many train with HRM and without power? I would say the vast majority. Part of it is economics but believe the core reason is training still comes full circle to how much stress you are applying to your heart. That was the basis for my question and you answered it implicitly. Not to diminish the good feedback of power as others have stated...but what I am hearing is training to power without HR can be perhaps detrimental because a low HR relative to give power output is a telltale that the rider is fatigued and continuing on this path is perhaps counterproductive to improvement.

Kopsis

For me it depends on the type of training/riding. For threshold intervals and beyond, I prefer to train to power level. HR just doesn't respond fast enough. For Zone 2 work, I'll use either (HR on the road, power on the trainer). For Zone 3 I don't use either. Those are usually my group rides and I just ride with the group and have fun. On those rides my goal is to average Zone 3, but I'm not the least bit worried about spending some of the time at a higher or lower zone. Does that cost me some training efficiency? Perhaps. But if it's all structured training it starts to feel a lot like "work" and that's not why most of us got into cycling

Another thing I wanted to mention - you don't need an expensive power meter to train with power. Many stationary trainers have a reasonably consistent speed : power curve. Kurt Kinetic is one of the better in this regard, but others have stepped up their game and have this data available for their trainers as well. If you do your interval training on a stationary trainer, you can just compute the speed(s) that will get you the power outputs you want. Yes, there are all kinds of error/uncertainty factors, but it's still an improvement over using HR alone.

Campag4life

Thanks Kopsis. Did you establish your threshold power intervals and beyond by trial and error..or were they in any way tied to HR zone initially?

chaadster

I suppose that raises the question if HR is the only to tell if one's fatigued. Me? I know how I feel, and go by that, but often, once I get into the workout, I put out a harder effort (i.e. more power) than I might have thought was possible at the outset.

Therefore, for me, HR has no impact on my training regimen, by which I mean either I, or my coach, pick the workout based on other factors, never HR. Whatever my HR is in the midst of the workout, that's what it is, and I nonetheless try to hit my power goals. If, in reviewing the ride data, I missed my goals, we look at HR for clues as to why. If I'm consistently overachieving, we look at HR to see if fitness suggests it's time to move up FTP.

Campag4life

Cool. Over the time you have trained, how much have your power levels and FTP raised?

Carbonfiberboy 

As others have already pointed out, depressed HR means tired, so I don't "go for it." This is how many riders new to HR training get screwed up. They keep trying to train to HR even though they have more and more trouble hitting their numbers. Before they realize what's going on, they're way overcooked. Same thing happens to PM users who don't understand HR.

I also do recovery rides on my rollers by HR. Sometimes after a couple of hard days, even though it feels easy, I know I'm going too fast. I haven't really suddenly gotten way stronger. My HR is just a little depressed. No harm done. Recovery rides can be done in quite a wide power band.

Say I do two 20' constant speed (power) Tempo intervals in my rollers. I like to see only 2-3 beats HR drift on the second interval. Or I do an hour of steady zone 2. When I'm in good form, I might not see any HR drift. That's once I've warmed up and my tires have warmed up, which takes about 20 minutes.

Campag4life

One of the things learned by discussion is how different training sessions are crafted. I suppose it is like trying to apply science which turns out to be part art or philosophy difference between coaches or even riders.

For example. Comparing your approach CFB to that of Chad...you iterate/revamp your Power training target on the spot as you monitor HR and if your HR is unusually low for a given power output, you reduce your power for that given training session because you are overcooked. Not what I hear from Chad. Chad only references HR after the fact and not during. He trains to power only and if power targets aren't met, he and his trainer will then look at HR as root cause after the fact. This is a philosophical difference. Two riders...both with access to power and HR metrics and a different approach.

One of the reasons I asked about the relationship between power and HR training is I suspected there to be a difference in technique employed between different riders which only stands to reason as no doubt there are not only different strategies to train but of course different power and HR targets for each of us based upon different fitness levels.

TexMac

Not sure if it's all about genetics. I read mark Cavendish books & he states that he's not genetically blessed like other riders (kittel, gripel,etc) hence efficiency & preparedness is his armor. Guy hates power meters and produces the least power as compared to other riders in TDF.

Campag4life

Cavendish produces the least power? Or are you speaking of least average power per stage? I know Cav isn't the biggest horse in the stable but can't believe he produces less power...believe this belies his sprinting prowess.

TexMac

Yap. In his books he states that, of all the riders in his team, he produces the least amount of power per stage. This is form his own admission in the book, just what i read.

redlude97

As he should, he's a sprinter, that is the rest of the team's job. I think you are interpreting what he means wrong though.

TexMac

You might be right but the guy insists how he hates powermeters because he always has the lowest power output even during training. Has had numerous fights/disagreement with coaches who would insist his power output was pathetic and he needed to produce more power.

redlude97

He certainly seems to be bragging about his 1580W number in this interview...Mark Cavendish Interview: Obsessive compulsive marauder - Cycle Sport

Carbonfiberboy 

That difference is largely that chaadster has a coach and I am self-coached. When you have a coach, whoever that may be, you do what the coach says. Also being 68, I need to be careful of overtraining. I would rather be undertrained than overtrained.

TexMac

You noticed he's not close to griepel's 1800 watts

redlude97

He's also way smaller than Griepel, and that max number is still higher than 99% of the riders in the TdF, wasn't that your argument in the first place?

TexMac

check this quote fom that read;

"The attention to detail which goes into Cavendish’s sprints is quite incredible. He is well known for his scepticism of judging riders purely by their power outputs, and when he talks about his own methods of racing, it’s not surprising. Wattages are only a small part of a very long equation, although Cavendish’s reputed low numbers don’t look that low to us"

TexMac

You missed the argument. "It's all about GENETICS"

redlude97

Okay then, what was the point of this statement then? Your argument doesn't make sense. He has one of the higher max power to weight ratios out there and one of the smallest frontal areas. Coaching: training to develop a better sprint | Road Cycling UK

Gramercy

It seems to be like people don't do enough to block his team from setting up a leadout. I watched stage 1 of tour of Cali and he had no resistance in front of him. Another team should sprint ahead and just try to clog up the lanes to give their own team a chance. It must be annoying for other teams to watch Cavendish sit in the peleton for 119.9 miles and then spring for 0.1 miles and win.

RChung

I train with power but I haven't used a HR belt for maybe the last 6 or 7 years. The battery needed replacing but I thought about how I'd been using the information it provided and decided it wasn't worth the $5 for a new battery. I'd say the majority of folks I know who train with power use HR as a supplement but a substantial fraction don't. Coggan is pretty infamous for saying that if you have power (and you have a well-calibrated sense of your own RPE) then at best HR is redundant and at worst it is misleading.

I agree with this. Most people don't exploit the full potential of a power meter and use it almost like they would use a HRM. It shouldn't then be surprising that if they use it this way, the training effect won't be much different than using a HRM. This is why, for most people, accuracy and precision in a power meter really don't matter much, and you can pretty much get the same effect out of a Stages or iBike as you could a PT or SRM. Most people just train to raise their FTP and this is perhaps the least demanding use of a power meter. If all you are interested in doing is raising your FTP, you can probably do that pretty well with just a HRM, or just a wristwatch and a speedometer. It's when you start trying to focus in on specific goals or physiological systems then the precision and accuracy of a power meter matter. If you don't need or want to do those things then I think a HRM (or a wristwatch and speedometer) are probably fine.

bbbean 

Because as a sprinter, he hides in the pack til they're ready for him, then unleashes an outrageous speed for the final stretch of the race.