Yes, all good, solid points...

But, for me, I think the HRM works better (despite the limitations you point out), not because it works so well, but because my proprioception & 'body sense' are so damn poor... I really do not trust myself to know what my body is doing or what it is trying to tell me -- particularly while 'going hard'...
.
I have reported my extremely poor proprioception to others (such as trainers & physical therapists) and every single one of them has immediately responded: "No, that is not true...." But, it is quite true... I notice it especially while trying to utilize specific, single muscle groups -- especially when multiple movements are involved...
.
So, for me, (not most others), I think the % of MaxHR works better than my perception of LTHR, VT1, VT2, etc... Plus, being lazy, means my mind & body will take every excuse it can find to slack off -- While the HRM is rather merciless. It just doesn't care what you feel like!

And...

While doing my 3x4 intervals @ 95%MHR this afternoon, another aspect of this discussion on whether to use a HRM vs (I will call it) 'perceived effort' dawned on me:

My first interval is the hardest, my second is a little easier and my third is the easiest -- even though all three are done at the same heart rate. In fact, by my third, I have trouble holding my heart rate down! And, if I were basing it on any level of perception, my first interval would likely be somewhere below the 95% level and the third level would likely be above my (supposed) max heart rate (even though the max was determined on a treadmill stress test and correlates well with the calculated max...

I'm not sure of what to make of all that -- or if it happens to anybody else but me... But it is a very consistent phenomena that I experience each time do HIIT training. But, for me, it is another reason to base it on a HRM -- at least I have a constant that I can rely on and replicate.

Sure, that happens to everyone. That's why riders use PMs. It's called heart rate drift. Your drift must be particularly bad, which I'm sorry to say, is because your conditioning is not good. You should be able to comfortably hold VT1 for over an hour on the trainer at the same speed with zero heart rate drift. Check to see how that works for you. So that's what I was saying and why I don't use HR for hard intervals, rather I use RPE based on breathing. If you had a PM, you'd see your watts declining for each interval. That's why they keep feeling easier.

So you see, while you have a constant that you can replicate, it's the wrong constant. It's the effort you want to keep the same, not the HR.

Your treadmill MHR is worthless, BTW. Ignore it. Go by LTHR.

I find HR useless for gauging effort, at any duration, for exactly the reason you mention. The response time is simply too long.

If I warm up, then lay down steady 20 minute power (105% of FTP), it takes 8 minutes for my HR to reach LTHR.

I can do one minute intervals at 120% of FTP, with 5 minutes "recovery" at 85 - 90% of FTP and never get within 10 bpm of LTHR.

Your experience is exactly what I would expect since you are using HR as your primary reference.

Thanks, that all makes sense -- particularly the part about: "your conditioning is not good". It's not good, I admit. But it's a whole lot better than it was 3 years ago and it's still coming along. It took me years to get where I am, and it will take more years to get to where I hope to be...

I will take your information under advisement -- which is not a subtle blow-off. Rather, it is an acknowledgement that you know what you are talking about and bring up great points. But, implementing those points will not be easy. I have a ways to go there too! But I do plan on continuing to work on it...

Thanks!

Yes, it takes years. I got back on a bike when I was 50. When I was 58, I was riding about as well as I ever did post 50, maybe better than I rode at 18, but without as much high end. I kept getting a little better until I was 63, 6 years ago, and then I began to slide a bit. I'm now seeing if I can get back to where I was at 63. Maybe. As I got older, I found I had to train smarter, not harder, to keep improving. What smarter was I found by research and experimentation.

If it can be said that there are secrets, they are consistency and volume. The more consistent you are during the week and week-to-week, the better. The more volume, the better, with the caution that the intensity must be low enough to prevent overtraining. I could go on and on . . .

That's good...

But also, in order to maintain functionality into the 80's and 90's, I would suggest balance: Balance aerobic workouts with strength training, flexibility, and balance training -- and even add mental conditioning. And, of course, do not neglect diet (which I know you do not!)...

The body can compensate for many imbalances where it uses the strength of one area to compensate for a weakness in another area -- but it works best when all areas are healthy... That principal is best illustrated in the "Homeostasis" model of electrolytes where each of the dozens of electrolytes exists within a range that the body finds helpful -- not too much and not too little of any single one...

For myself, I am finding that let I let myself go too far for too long and all areas had become weak. Finally, at 62 I began to focus on cardio-aerobic and that is much strengthened and, at this point, much better than typical for my age -- but I now need to focus on restoring strength as well. I have seen too many people waste away a potentially healthy, happy life with a perfectly functioning set of heart and lungs -- but without a body or mind to use that capacity. And, typically what has happened to them over the years is that one weak area led to another, and another, and another...

Actually, the saddest cases are those where the strong heart and lungs keeps somebody alive where the rest of their mind and body have already, effectively, died... But, conversely, without a strong heart and lungs, the rest of the body cannot be healthy for very long. It is a balance...

Okay, I've done three hour plus spins below VT1 on my trainer, which for me is 180 - 195 watts, HR about 138 avg, max 141. I find these a real grind.

Don't know if I'm going to stay on this Pol. bandwagon or not, because I just don't like it. When I throw some hard sprints in the mix, it's fairly clear that there's an adrenal hormone response. I'm pretty in tune with my bod, I can feel it within seconds of a max effort. This changes the PE of the balance of a workout fairly dramatically (PE drops for any given power) and the workout just feels better.

A half hour after working out all sub VT1 I feel kind of poochy. A half hour after the same average power, same kJ total, but with 5 sprints to full power for 10", I feel energized. My bod is making a very strong case for keeping the sprints. I've done some casual google searching to see if I can find any scholarly work that shines some light on this, and so far have not.

Yes, it is hard. That's why they say it takes discipline. As you say, kicking your effort up releases hormones. This is exactly what you don't want. It's not supposed to be easy. I thought there was plenty of scholarly work presented on polarized training. If you want to train another way, go ahead. Most people do.

I get the reasoning against training at tempo (accumulating fatigue). A few hard sprints in an hour of sub VT1 has a very low cost in fatigue. Why should those hormone releases be avoided in easy workouts? That's the question I would like to have an answer to.

Ah. Because going harder than VT1 activates the anaerobic energy system and the whole point of the strict aerobic workouts is to avoid that. They want to be strictly fat-burning workouts. Another thing is that the hormones you expend doing those sprints should be saved for the VT2+ workouts so that they are as effective as possible. I used to do exactly the same thing you are doing when I rode outdoors and for the same reasons. I'm now trying this new way. However, I always rode my rollers strictly in zone if that's what I had scheduled. I find it plenty hard to hold. I suppose the theory might be that it gets easier as aerobic fitness improves? I already don't get HR drift after an hour of it, but I can still feel the stress in my legs by then.

And I thought of another thing: those sprints generate lactate. Lactate is fuel. That's a big thing that makes it feel easier. But you're trying to get your body to generate all the energy from fat, and the presence of lactate interferes with that.

Isn't lactate a metabolite?

It's true that fat metabolism is nil in the lactate accumulation zone (> VT2) but unless I've had a total failure of reading comprehension, lactate isn't the the reason. It's the result.

Pardon my ignorance, but what does "VT1 and VT2" and stand for? I know of all the other acronyms for training zones, but never heard of these.

Post training testing showed that athletes who trained this way had virtually no lactate accumulation below VT1. That's the point. Those who trained in other ways did. If you've read Chapple's Base Training for Cyclists, his experience is that athletes who devote a considerable amount of time to training their fat metabolism can produce more power in the upper zones than athletes who did not. While Chapple does not advocate polarized training, or at least did not several years ago when that book was written, his experience as a coach dovetails well with the experience of these Norwegian coaches.

I think this makes sense because lactate accumulation is the limiter. It is not true that fat metabolism is nil over VT2. Fat is still burned below VO2max. There are many similar graphs:
http://www.pponline.co.uk/encyc/img/263afig2.png
The more fat you can burn over VT2, the more power you can produce or at least produce that power for longer.

Ventilatory Threshold.

VT1 is the point at which breathing begins to accelerate in a non-linear fashion with power. Roughly, it's 75% of FTP, top of Friel's Z2. You should be able to speak sentences comfortably at and below VT1. VT2 is Lactate Threshold, the beginning of the lactate accumulation zone.

Right, I got that point. It's basically a physiological description of "Z3 syndrome".

Thanks for the rest. I haven't read Chapple, probably should.

Did another sub VT1 workout today... it went a little better. Better power, lower HR, stable HR.

Same here. HR drifts upward and RPE decouples massively from it, for whatever reason. Without a really solid warmup I have a hard time getting up to 95% MHR. Psychologically, it feels like 100%.

Funny thing about racing, though, I toe the line and I'm almost at 90% from the nerves.

I've read that Chappele, Base Training for Cyclists book. Darn frustrating, because I read it alongside Michael Ross's Maximum Performance for Cyclists, which advocated high intensity and substituted fasted morning rides for long rides. Also, Ross prescribes an occasional week of high-fat, low-carb diet to force the metabolism to burn fat. Many many studies are cited on both sides, but Ross in particular had at least one study for every claim he made int he book. Chappele was mostly training lore, dogma, and stories of his own experiences as a coach.

Informally, a lot of folks swear by base miles. Others argue that base miles actually make you fat and slow. The hormone stuff is all bad for low intensity. Also, if you're not really symmetrical and smooth on the bike, a lot of miles can lead to injury, or even short of that, respiratory infections, getting hit by a car. Spending hours in exactly one position, bent over no less, at low intensity, just doesn't seem like the recipe for good health (weight loss, metabolism, muscle mass, testosterone, etc.).

But I've done both HIIT and base. Definitely had a better season with a traditional base, doing lots of long easy rides. Once I started doing weekly training races on top of it, I got seriously fit. But I also just had a lot more TSS.

What the heck, I'm doing neither, now, but sitting right there in the much-derided middle range, doing Trainer Road's sweet spot base and hanging out just below LT. I figured I don't have time this year for a traditional base with work/family obligations, and I don't see the point in doing HIIT in the middle of winter. The sweet spot is supposed to induce the greatest training returns for the least stresses. That's the Coggan take anyway. Then I come across *this* stuff. Now I'm doubting myself again. Training science is worse than nutrition science. The next thing I know they'll be saying that donuts are a health food, smoking is actually good for you, helps you "catch your wind", and pesticides and herbicides improve our longevity. The best training will be micro-efforts of 2 seconds spread throughout the day. Or something like that.

Maybe I'll go back the "ride lots" plan. Served me well in the past. Put away the HRM, no power meter, just go ride a ton and don't think about it. Then in the early spring do some hills and then race once or twice a week until you get the top end. By the middle of summer, you're crushing it.

Generally speaking, you can find a study which proves whichever ideology you have decided to believe...
... We have been conditioned by the drug companies to believe that, because it is called a "study", that its results are true and accurate.

Amen to that. The medical world in total seems the worst at all this. When you see results where it takes a room full of PhD's to determine if the outcomes were significant or not, you really get the feeling that the outcomes were not significant (in the sense that it should affect an individual's decisions) regardless.

dave

ps. I still remember the Hormone Replacement Thing where the heart protection provided by HRT was 'so obvious' that they terminated the study early so they could give this protection to the placebo group. It was years later when they determined that this decision was completely wrong.

What I am finding with this polarized training approach is that I hate all my workouts. So I'm done with this!

LOL. This was my problem with HIIT. I started seriously dreading my rides. I like some intensity, but 30 seconds on, 30 seconds off can really grind you down. There is some wisdom to the old methods that isn't captured in the studies. That's because they're observations made over whole seasons and over several years. It's true the old "pretty" easy mega-base, then racing plan is not optimal. But throw in some precisely measured intervals once a week and it gets pretty close. And it won't make you feel like hanging yourself from boredom or burn yourself out either.

Yeah, training is hard.

And yet there are now those coming forth who point out how badly flawed the study was that "determined that this decision was completely wrong".

... Generally speaking, most "studies" whether medical or not, tend to prove whatever it was that they set out to prove with their "Study".

In the case of the trial that you speak of: it proved that if a woman who has not had significant amounts of estrogen in her body for more than 10 or 20 years ingests estrogen derived from horse's urine, her chances of cardiac events increases for the 6-12 month period after she started ingesting that urine derived estrogen. OK, that would have been fine if the authors of the study had stopped there... But, those authors then went on to generalize the results and announced that estrogen causes heart disease in women - which we know from other "studies" is a highly debatable conclusion. (There are however, other conclusions from that study related to cancer that were less controversial.)

Edit to add:
The fact is: most studies are done to prove a predetermined conclusion -- and they succeed in that. And, while they add to the general body of human knowledge, we should generalize those findings with extreme caution and conservatism. But, Big Pharma has been so successful using such studies to sell their product, that they have conditioned the medical community and many non-medical people to believe the results of those flawed studies...