Go Back  Bike Forums > The Racer's Forum > "The 33"-Road Bike Racing
Reload this Page >

CTS training differences between HRM and power

Notices
"The 33"-Road Bike Racing We set this forum up for our members to discuss their experiences in either pro or amateur racing, whether they are the big races, or even the small backyard races. Don't forget to update all the members with your own race results.

CTS training differences between HRM and power

Old 11-03-15, 06:10 PM
  #1  
nemeseri
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: San Francisco, CA
Posts: 465

Bikes: Trek Emonda SL build, CAAD10, Bianchi Pista '13, Litespeed Antares '03

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 52 Post(s)
Liked 4 Times in 1 Post
CTS training differences between HRM and power

I know that training with HRM is almost considered obsolete, but I have a buddy who trains with it and discussing our training led to numerous questions. I train with power, but I also record my HR during my rides.

I've been following one of the plans from Charmichael's The Time Crunched Cyclist. The book emphasize that doing workouts with power is better and makes the workouts more precise, BUT also states that you can follow the plans based on HR data.

My question is mainly about combined workouts like Threshold Ladders. In these intervals, you start with a power interval (110-130% of 8 min test), then lower your power to climbing repeat (95-100% power / 95-97% HR of 8 min test) and finish it on steady state (86-90% power / 92-94% HR of 8 min test). I find these intervals extremely painful with power. My heart rate climbs up real fast and stays very high during the whole interval. At the end of the power interval part I'm close to my max HR and lowering my power only lowers my heart rate a tad. It's doable, but it's extremely painful.

If I based my workout on HR, it would be a completely different story. I'd have to drop my power significantly after the power interval to lower my heart rate to the prescribed level and keep it there.

This difference is less apparent in the case of simple workouts like longer steady state or climbing repeat sessions, but I noticed that my heart rate is usually in a higher zone than my power. i.e. During a climbing repeat my heart rate avarage usually higher than 97% of my test result.

Therefore, ultimately I spend much-much more time in higher heart rate zones than my buddy and it makes me wonder which method (hr/power) yields better results. I know that the time crunched cyclist focuses on high intensity plans, but still, it makes me wonder that I overdo my workouts because of this difference in power and HR. Do I?

Last edited by nemeseri; 11-03-15 at 06:58 PM.
nemeseri is offline  
Old 11-03-15, 06:53 PM
  #2  
Doge
Senior Member
 
Doge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Southern California, USA
Posts: 10,419

Bikes: 1979 Raleigh Team 753

Mentioned: 153 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3351 Post(s)
Liked 363 Times in 247 Posts
I posted a lot about this in the power thread with relation to my kid and received a lot of push-back. My son uses HR and prefers it over power as a guide. See the new PM I just got and installed today https://www.bikeforums.net/33-road-bi...l#post18292391 - he doesn't want one. In general we use HR as a measure of how hard to work - not power. Power is often recorded but the numbers don't cause change in riding, while HR does. Also use SP02 a bit to tell when the body is unable to bring enough O2 into the blood. Got a new gadget coming that may change all that in a Lactate monitor.

HR is also more portable. You can use it running, cycling, rowing although the numbers are different based on the activity.

Last edited by Doge; 11-03-15 at 06:57 PM.
Doge is offline  
Old 11-03-15, 06:56 PM
  #3  
Alaska Mike
The Slow One
 
Alaska Mike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Anchorage, AK
Posts: 258

Bikes: Hate me.

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Power is a representation of the work you do. Heart rate is your body's response to that work.

Heart rate can be extremely variable, affected by multiple factors. Power is... power. You either can produce it or you can't.

With heart rate, I would keep my HR in a zone for the designated amount of time. If I was sick, tired, or dehydrated, I would be putting out less power at that HR zone than I would have on a good day. In other words, I would be doing less work. If my HR was slow to respond, I would be working too hard to get it into that zone.

I track both, because they are different data points that can complement each other. However, I train by power. HR is usually used afterwards to indicate how my body is reacting. YMMV.
Alaska Mike is offline  
Old 11-03-15, 07:02 PM
  #4  
Doge
Senior Member
 
Doge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Southern California, USA
Posts: 10,419

Bikes: 1979 Raleigh Team 753

Mentioned: 153 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3351 Post(s)
Liked 363 Times in 247 Posts
For the reasons @Alaska Mike states - that is why we use HR for training and the ITT. Because while it is variable, it tends to vary with how your body is. If junior goes and pushes 400W one day and another day is off - the HR covers that. Telling him to just do 400W does not help. Also morning/resting HR tells a story too. If it is elevated in the AM the max will be lower. If you are at altitude resting will be higher, max will be lower. A rider on the edge pushing the same power on an off day/conditions would likely blow where if they follow their HR and adjusted - they would not.
Doge is offline  
Old 11-03-15, 09:39 PM
  #5  
Ygduf
\_(ツ)_/
 
Ygduf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Redwood City, CA
Posts: 10,978

Bikes: aggressive agreement is what I ride.

Mentioned: 109 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 967 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 4 Times in 4 Posts
in training use power because if you're using HR, and it's high that day so you are training with what essentially is power lower than your zone you would have been better served with resting instead.

HR sucks as a metric. It's like training with Today's Temperature vs. the Avg. Temp for today. They might be close, but it just doesn't matter.
Ygduf is offline  
Old 11-04-15, 09:13 AM
  #6  
dz_nuzz
Rides too much bike
 
dz_nuzz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Boston
Posts: 842
Mentioned: 22 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 232 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
My experience has been that HR does not correlate that well between RPE and power. I have seen my heart rate very high some days and very low others at the exact same RPE with approximately the same power. My experience with it has been that the high and the lows are better representations, so if I am at max HR it almost always feels the same, if I am at a low HR, it always feels the same. But at points in between my power and RPE don't always line up there.
dz_nuzz is offline  
Old 11-04-15, 09:38 AM
  #7  
grolby
Senior Member
 
grolby's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: BOSTON BABY
Posts: 9,723
Mentioned: 27 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 260 Post(s)
Liked 63 Times in 41 Posts
Heart rate training isn't obsolete, and despite having a power meter I'll be relying pretty extensively on my HRM during my base period over the winter. For endurance and tempo work, HR is about as useful over a long ride low-moderate intensity ride because you're really developing the ability to maintain your response at a certain level for a long period of time more than you are developing power per se. We don't really do endurance and tempo work to raise our power in those zones, even if it is an effect of that work. In my opinion.

For high-intensity threshold workouts, on the other hand, heart rate is damn near useless in my experience. It doesn't respond consistently, and it doesn't respond fast enough. Usually you end up going too hard early to try and push your HR into the zone, and then you fade hard because you've gone out too fast and because you're trying to keep your HR from climbing out of the zone. I don't even find, as you do, that my HR has a consistent relationship to my power output in the way you describe it, that is, with your HR running a zone higher than your power output. Over the course of a training block or a season, it might start out running high when I'm fresh and maybe less fit, then running low when I'm fatigued. Then it's less high when I'm fit and fresh, and etc. Over the long run, it tracks very well - during a hard 40-60 minute crit or cyclocross race, my average HR will likely be very close to my tested lactic threshold HR, plus or minus 5 bpm or so. But the moment-to-moment correlation to the actual power I'm putting out is fairly weak.

I can't tell you if you're "overdoing" your workouts, but you're more likely to be getting them right than your friend who relies on HR. The thing about heart rate training is that it's easy to underdo the intense workouts and overdo the easy ones and end up flat. You can train well by HR, but doing so requires knowing when you need to just ignore what it says.
grolby is offline  
Old 11-04-15, 09:41 AM
  #8  
Alaska Mike
The Slow One
 
Alaska Mike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Anchorage, AK
Posts: 258

Bikes: Hate me.

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
I think you'd be hard-pressed to find a competent coach that couldn't develop a training plan that could use each method of effort measurement to get results. They both have their positives and negatives. However, it's also pretty hard to find a competent coach that doesn't prefer power as a metric. The data points you can get from the two combined (which is almost always the case when actually using the data for anything more than an eWang) provide a much clearer picture of athlete condition.

I guess the real point is that it's hard to find a competent coach.
Alaska Mike is offline  
Old 11-04-15, 10:14 AM
  #9  
tommyrod74
MS, Registered Dietitian
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 241
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 40 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time in 1 Post
Originally Posted by Alaska Mike View Post
I think you'd be hard-pressed to find a competent coach that couldn't develop a training plan that could use each method of effort measurement to get results. They both have their positives and negatives. However, it's also pretty hard to find a competent coach that doesn't prefer power as a metric. The data points you can get from the two combined (which is almost always the case when actually using the data for anything more than an eWang) provide a much clearer picture of athlete condition.

I guess the real point is that it's hard to find a competent coach.
As a coach, I'll respond that I use both (along with RPE) with my athletes.

Most of my athletes have power meters, but some do not. We use power and/or RPE for shorter, more intense intervals as HR lags too far behind to use as a metric in this case. We still monitor HR during these workouts but it's used descriptively, not prescriptively.

Longer intervals (20+ minutes), HR is a fine proxy. Long base rides as well.

I prefer for any client to have a power meter, but I can work around the lack of one fairly easily. Having power, HR, and paying attention to RPE gives a very complete picture of workload, adaptation, recovery, fatigue, etc.

Personally, with my own training, I've used HR and a power meter enough I can correlate RPE with a power number pretty accurately, even if I don't have the power number on the Garmin screen at the time. I think that's a good goal for a training cyclist, to be able to accurately recognize what a Zone 5 effort feels like - and to recognize that when Zone 3 feels like Zone 5, it's probably time to recover further before pushing it again.

Last edited by tommyrod74; 11-04-15 at 10:17 AM.
tommyrod74 is offline  
Old 11-04-15, 10:55 AM
  #10  
Doge
Senior Member
 
Doge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Southern California, USA
Posts: 10,419

Bikes: 1979 Raleigh Team 753

Mentioned: 153 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3351 Post(s)
Liked 363 Times in 247 Posts
There is a coaching philosophy that comes into play here regardless of measurement device/technique. It is about how much to varying or not to vary training based on feedback on how the athlete is that day - or week. I remember Moser would take his morning blood pressure and HR to determine how hard he was going to work that day. Those were pre-PM days. Other coaches would prescribe doing the same workout. Maybe in the gym with known weights or maybe a set hill course - regardless of the day.
These are pretty much the same concepts I hear now - just better measuring devices are used.

Use power so you know you are doing the same thing and let HR just be a result.
OR
See how you feel and determine what is the best thing to do based on how you feel.

My son's trainer is of the latter philosophy. He just got back from as I was posting this. The weights he used were based on what the trainer thought he felt like rather than being the same.
For the reasons of the training philosophy he follows - HR, morning resting HR, SPO2 and now lactate measurements are more important to him/us for training than maintaining the same power, or weights.
Doge is offline  
Old 11-08-15, 10:33 AM
  #11  
Yep
no cat contains
 
Yep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Edinburgh Scotland
Posts: 879
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 54 Post(s)
Liked 139 Times in 72 Posts
I don't think HR is worth much for endurance/base stuff either. On 2+ hour rides your HR is going to drift one way or another and the effort won't be accurately reflected in HR. I would guess that people who are training solely with HR are getting stronger from the time/mileage and it's just a coincidence that they have a HR monitor.
Yep is offline  
Old 11-08-15, 10:51 PM
  #12  
Doge
Senior Member
 
Doge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Southern California, USA
Posts: 10,419

Bikes: 1979 Raleigh Team 753

Mentioned: 153 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3351 Post(s)
Liked 363 Times in 247 Posts
Originally Posted by Yep View Post
...and the effort won't be accurately reflected in HR.
Effort? As in how a rider feels? I have no idea what power junior should ride to after hour 4 in a hilly RR, but I can tell him what HR to target (and he may disregard my advice). HR tells about fatigue, hydration and effort. Power tells you, well, your performance.

Specifically - 2105 Amateur National TT - most had a reduced power number for the altitude based TT. Some had O2 delivery the same at sea level and altitude and some did not. Few knew what power number to shoot for. Those that used the sea level watts or speed numbers in general blew up. There was a HR number to shoot for relative to sea level and altitude. I am unaware of the correction for power. I think it ranges from 0 (those with the same SP02 number as sea level) to 10%. For those that knew, or would listen, HR was the number to work with, not power.
Doge is offline  
Old 11-12-15, 12:02 AM
  #13  
Alaska Mike
The Slow One
 
Alaska Mike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Anchorage, AK
Posts: 258

Bikes: Hate me.

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
I can tell you my heart rate varies greatly throughout any road race, depending on how the race has progressed up to that point. How hard I go is dictated by my tactics and the tactics of the field- I don't gauge my efforts by my heart rate, because I'm either off the front, with the pack, or off the back. I don't need a HRM to tell me when I'm going to blow up. Likewise, spending my time Frooming my stem trying to meter out power on pack events means I'm less aware of pack dynamics and probably a danger to everyone around me. Hill climbs and TTs are the only place where I watch power and compare it to HR, so I can judge the work and the effect is has on me. Mostly, power is used after the fact for analysis of race efforts. I have yet to be in a race where everyone agrees to ride in Z3 for the entire time.

Anyone who was shooting for the same power levels as they would have achieved at sea level wasn't using their power meter properly, and deserved to blow up. Hard way to learn a lesson, but some people learn best that way.
Alaska Mike is offline  
Old 11-12-15, 07:50 AM
  #14  
grolby
Senior Member
 
grolby's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: BOSTON BABY
Posts: 9,723
Mentioned: 27 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 260 Post(s)
Liked 63 Times in 41 Posts
Originally Posted by Yep View Post
I don't think HR is worth much for endurance/base stuff either. On 2+ hour rides your HR is going to drift one way or another and the effort won't be accurately reflected in HR. I would guess that people who are training solely with HR are getting stronger from the time/mileage and it's just a coincidence that they have a HR monitor.
See, this is the kind of anti-HR training hyperbole that just gets silly. Training by HR is no more effective than with no metrics at all - really? Suffice it to say, that's not my experience.
grolby is offline  
Old 11-12-15, 07:15 PM
  #15  
shermo
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 51
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Alaska Mike View Post
I'm either off the front, with the pack, or off the back.
I find a power meter useful in this situation. 10k to the finish, that's about 15 minutes, I have a reasonable idea of the power I can hold in the situation. A power meter is great in what is effectively a TT.
shermo is offline  
Old 11-12-15, 11:44 PM
  #16  
Alaska Mike
The Slow One
 
Alaska Mike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Anchorage, AK
Posts: 258

Bikes: Hate me.

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by shermo View Post
I find a power meter useful in this situation. 10k to the finish, that's about 15 minutes, I have a reasonable idea of the power I can hold in the situation. A power meter is great in what is effectively a TT.
I'm very rarely off the front alone, since I don't have the kind of diesel required to hold off even a semi-determined pack. I've tried, but there a some guys that have a much higher threshold that go to the front and grind me under their wheels. I can take them in the sprint, so I usually look for strong moves or stay sheltered for the final.
Alaska Mike is offline  
Old 11-13-15, 05:52 PM
  #17  
Doge
Senior Member
 
Doge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Southern California, USA
Posts: 10,419

Bikes: 1979 Raleigh Team 753

Mentioned: 153 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3351 Post(s)
Liked 363 Times in 247 Posts
Junior is doing the Santiago TT Nov 21 on a bike fit he is getting Nov 19 - Hmm. Anyway, son, wife and I have found HR the preferred way to do a TT. That is not training, so a bit off topic, but the HR seems to better reflect what can be done on that day. ITT is partially determined from the morning HR the past few days, hydration and altitude/weather. But as you can see here - HR is pretty consistent - at least during the ride: https://www.bikeforums.net/33-road-bi...l#post17265184 I have 3 year of the VOS TT plots where my sons HR is 1-2 beats from the other years. It is his power that is very different each year.
Doge is offline  
Old 11-28-15, 04:30 PM
  #18  
Yep
no cat contains
 
Yep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Edinburgh Scotland
Posts: 879
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 54 Post(s)
Liked 139 Times in 72 Posts
Originally Posted by grolby View Post
See, this is the kind of anti-HR training hyperbole that just gets silly. Training by HR is no more effective than with no metrics at all - really? Suffice it to say, that's not my experience.
We an agree to disagree on this one. It's better than nothing, but not much better than PE.
Yep is offline  
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
sloring
Training & Nutrition
3
03-16-16 04:30 PM
Carbonfiberboy
Training & Nutrition
3
05-17-15 09:56 AM
Campag4life
Road Cycling
64
05-15-14 09:35 PM
eugenek
Training & Nutrition
10
05-13-12 09:48 AM
nitropowered
Road Cycling
4
01-24-10 03:11 PM

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information -

Copyright © 2023 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.