Perceived Exertion

SilverSurfer

I used to have a HRM but it only told me that I was outside the training zones all the time. I also never went in for the near death experience of max HR test.

I'm only a leisure cyclist so I can't see what a HRM would realistically do for me - there must be an old school approach that everyone used to do.

So does anyone rate the 'perceived exertion' scale approach to training and does it actually work, or do you just end up going flat out all the time?

And is going flat out all the time such a bad thing if you have sufficient rest?

Alex_Simmons/RST

PE is fine.

There are a few scales, one of the better know in the Borg scale.

The table in the link below, while it's about using power as the guide to intensity, relates to a PE scale out of 10 and if you read the descriptions as to the sensations experienced at various levels of effort, you'll get a good idea of how to rate the effort level.

Then if you look further down the item, you'll see the sort of adaptations that occur when doing training at those levels.

http://www.cyclingpeakssoftware.com/power411/levels.asp

SilverSurfer

Thanks, that looks useful!

andrewgturnbull

Hi there.

I concur! Perceived Exertion is pretty much all I ever use, mostly because I'm training across 3 different sports. My heart rate zones differ from running to cycling, while measuring them in a swimming pool is a real pain in the a$$.

I do use a hrm on the turbo trainer or rollers where conditions are more static, but otherwise it is perceived exertion and pace based training.

It works well for me, and once you've got to learn a bit about how your body works you'll find that the zones are pretty wide.

Cheers, Andy