Use HR and power?

chrisjohnsen

Hi, I was wondering if there is a need to continue using the HR-monitor when I have a power meter. When training I don´t look at the HR anymore, so it is mostly recording for later analysis. Is there a need for this? Or may it just be confusing?

Thanks,
Chris

hdow

You need it to help calculate some Efficiency Factors especially those relating to aerobic capacity. These can help determine when you are plateauing through endurance training and it is time to change your training plan

imposter2.0

If you are training with power, you don't really need HR.

markhewitt1978

Power meter tells you your output. HR tells you how hard your body is working to achieve it.

When racing you can go just from power but for training HR is still useful.

Grill

I look at HR after the fact to determine what sort of shape I'm in, but when riding/racing power is the only metric I need.

imposter2.0

markhewitt1978 wrote:

Power meter tells you your output. HR tells you how hard your body is working to achieve it.

Strictly speaking, HR only tells you how fast your heart is beating. It's a poor guide to effort, as lots of things can elevate your HR which don't even involve making an effort.

Grill

Imposter wrote:

markhewitt1978 wrote:

Power meter tells you your output. HR tells you how hard your body is working to achieve it.

Strictly speaking, HR only tells you how fast your heart is beating. It's a poor guide to effort, as lots of things can elevate your HR which don't even involve making an effort.

1 pint of Ben & Jerry's = +10 bpm

chrisjohnsen

Thanks for all your opinions. I think I will try to ride without HR for a while to see how it feels.

napoleond

I do all my endurance training based on HR and my intervals/racing in power.

AK_jnr

I never put the HR monitor on any more. I keep meaning to for races, more out of curiosity than anything but I always forget.

stueys

It's a good indicator of aerobic fitness, you EF score in essentially the power output relative to HR. Over time it should get better as you get fitter. The only other use I make of HR is tracking my pace on fasted endurance rides. Otherwise it's all power.

mentalalex

Use both together, both on the MTB and road.

Use it how you want, if you want to, then do so.
Depends on what your goals are.

taon24

My understanding is that HR is cheap and easy data to obtain, especially if you already have a HR monitor.
Power will measure what your body is producing on a certain day.
HR gives an estimate of the percentage of your maximum that you are producing on a given day and an estimation of your recovery. There are lots of variables that affect heart rate so it will vary a bit based on non-training and training factors.
Using them together should hopefully enable you to see whether either your power is increasing as your HR remains constant over weeks to months or that if your HR is dropping over time, but power is remaining constant, that you could work harder.

philbar72

power only here. HR is useful sure, but can be affected by too many external influences…

StillGoing

taon24 wrote:

My understanding is that HR is cheap and easy data to obtain, especially if you already have a HR monitor.
Power will measure what your body is producing on a certain day.
HR gives an estimate of the percentage of your maximum that you are producing on a given day and an estimation of your recovery. There are lots of variables that affect heart rate so it will vary a bit based on non-training and training factors.
Using them together should hopefully enable you to see whether either your power is increasing as your HR remains constant over weeks to months or that if your HR is dropping over time, but power is remaining constant, that you could work harder.

Your power output is constant on a daily basis only affected by your level of fitness. Regular FTP tests will determine whether you're improving or deteriorating. Your HR on the other hand can vary from day to day as it is effected by temperature, weather, food intake, caffeine, altitude, illness etc. It's also slow to to record what your effort is. It may take a while for your HR reading to catch up with the effort you're actually making. Power is instantaneous. As a rider, you'll know what effort you're putting in without needing to see a false indication on a HR monitor. Leave the HR strap at home unless you have no other means of measuring and recording your efforts.

To quantify my view; I've got a completely blocked artery (from who knows what) so have a restricted blood supply to the left side and that can't be operated on. I only found this out a few weeks ago. Before all of this I had used both a HR monitor and my powermeter. I could never figure out why despite training properly, that my HR would rocket up towards zone 5 in no time despite the level of effort indicated by my power. The advice from the consultant (a cyclist himself) was to ditch the HR monitor, rely on power and just accept what the body tells you when it comes to perceived effort.

taon24

philthy3 wrote:

Your power output is constant on a daily basis only affected by your level of fitness. Regular FTP tests will determine whether you're improving or deteriorating. Your HR on the other hand can vary from day to day as it is effected by temperature, weather, food intake, caffeine, altitude, illness etc. It's also slow to to record what your effort is. It may take a while for your HR reading to catch up with the effort you're actually making. Power is instantaneous. As a rider, you'll know what effort you're putting in without needing to see a false indication on a HR monitor. Leave the HR strap at home unless you have no other means of measuring and recording your efforts.

To quantify my view; I've got a completely blocked artery (from who knows what) so have a restricted blood supply to the left side and that can't be operated on. I only found this out a few weeks ago. Before all of this I had used both a HR monitor and my powermeter. I could never figure out why despite training properly, that my HR would rocket up towards zone 5 in no time despite the level of effort indicated by my power. The advice from the consultant (a cyclist himself) was to ditch the HR monitor, rely on power and just accept what the body tells you when it comes to perceived effort.

Your power output to perceived effort will also be affected by temperature, food intake, illness and fatigue.
If you are looking to go as fast as possible for a time trial you want to ensure that you are being as efficient as possible, which is mostly going to be ensuring a constant power, but you want to maximise that power without over exerting yourself, which will reduce your ability to work hard later in the time trial. A Heart rate monitor can be used to help by looking at HR and power and percieved effort and saying 'I feel good, my HR is below target, my power is on target, I can revise up my target power by a few watts' or 'I feel good, my HR is way over target, my power is on target, I should back off a little as I suspect I am going too hard too early'

I agree that HR is slow to respond, but so too is perceived effort. However it is more objective than perceived effort. It will also not be subject to recall bias if reviewing your data, you can see that you went off at X watts but only managed an average of Y for the course, that your HR peaked too early or rose too fast, while relying on perceived effort you will have to think back, 'was I going hard there? How hard?'

In terms of training, I agree that power will be better for set intervals in terms of managable but hard sessions, however HR can be used to monitor longer term changes in fatigue, to ensure training levels are right, which can be a bigger problem than working hard while training.

StillGoing

My post on just use your perceived effort isn't meant to suggest using it in conjunction with the powermeter. It is merely to say that you know if you're working hard, harder or easier by your own perceived effort. You don't need a HR monitor to tell you that.

taon24

philthy3 wrote:

My post on just use your perceived effort isn't meant to suggest using it in conjunction with the powermeter. It is merely to say that you know if you're working hard, harder or easier by your own perceived effort. You don't need a HR monitor to tell you that.

I would suggest that a Power meter requires Heart Rate or Percieved effort (as these are measures related to the bodies attempts to produce power) to put the results in context.
I don't think perceived effort is that reliable or reproducible. HR will be more reproducible, even if it does vary. This, along with the minimal cost, is why I would advocate using HR with power.

StillGoing

taon24 wrote:

philthy3 wrote:

My post on just use your perceived effort isn't meant to suggest using it in conjunction with the powermeter. It is merely to say that you know if you're working hard, harder or easier by your own perceived effort. You don't need a HR monitor to tell you that.

I would suggest that a Power meter requires Heart Rate or Percieved effort (as these are measures related to the bodies attempts to produce power) to put the results in context.
I don't think perceived effort is that reliable or reproducible. HR will be more reproducible, even if it does vary. This, along with the minimal cost, is why I would advocate using HR with power.

Perceived effort is actual. The indicated HR is going to be time lagged. If you're doing intervals by HR, by the time you hit your targeted HR using a monitor, you'll already be over it and spend the rest of the interval trying to get it back down to the target. Power doesn't need either as long as you're doing regular CP20 tests to know your current FTP.

Alex_Simmons/RST

Stueys wrote:

It's a good indicator of aerobic fitness, you EF score in essentially the power output relative to HR. Over time it should get better as you get fitter. The only other use I make of HR is tracking my pace on fasted endurance rides. Otherwise it's all power.

End of day, if your sustainable power for a given duration of interest/relevance isn't improving, then you are not getting fitter, no matter what your HR does.

andyeb

I would recommend continuing to ride with HR and power. If you can see that your HR is consistently low for a given power output, it's an objective sign that you are becoming fatigued and/or over trained and that more/more structured rest and recovery is required.

vpnikolov

andyeb wrote:

I would recommend continuing to ride with HR and power. If you can see that your HR is consistently low for a given power output, it's an objective sign that you are becoming fatigued and/or over trained and that more/more structured rest and recovery is required.

Don't you mean consistently high? :roll:

jgsi

vpnikolov wrote:

andyeb wrote:

I would recommend continuing to ride with HR and power. If you can see that your HR is consistently low for a given power output, it's an objective sign that you are becoming fatigued and/or over trained and that more/more structured rest and recovery is required.

Don't you mean consistently high? :roll:

Thats the point... who knows ? We are different responders.
Heart rate is NOT a good training metric.

Alex_Simmons/RST

vpnikolov wrote:

andyeb wrote:

I would recommend continuing to ride with HR and power. If you can see that your HR is consistently low for a given power output, it's an objective sign that you are becoming fatigued and/or over trained and that more/more structured rest and recovery is required.

Don't you mean consistently high? :roll:

Both elevated and depressed HR responses are symptoms of fatigue. There are also other non-fatigue and non-cycling effort related factors that affect HR. It is not a consistent means of establishing much about one's fatigue levels or training status.

HR's use is fairly limited, as a general guide to sub-threshold relatively steady state intensity while riding it's OK. But much beyond that and the wheels start to fall off.

andyeb

vpnikolov wrote:

andyeb wrote:

I would recommend continuing to ride with HR and power. If you can see that your HR is consistently low for a given power output, it's an objective sign that you are becoming fatigued and/or over trained and that more/more structured rest and recovery is required.

Don't you mean consistently high? :roll:

I definitely meant low. As I complete a block of training, I sometimes find it's virtually impossible to raise my HR above 80% of (measured) maximum, no matter how hard I push. In this state I'm normally unable to hit the numbers in terms of power also.

But then after tapering for an event, I'm usually alarmed at how high my heart rate goes with little provocation, especially for the first 30 mins of the event.

bobmcstuff

philthy3 wrote:

Perceived effort is actual. The indicated HR is going to be time lagged. If you're doing intervals by HR, by the time you hit your targeted HR using a monitor, you'll already be over it and spend the rest of the interval trying to get it back down to the target. Power doesn't need either as long as you're doing regular CP20 tests to know your current FTP.

Yeah, but you quickly figure that out. On my turbo I know pretty well what gear/effort is going to produce X heartrate, and am able to hold steady heartrates pretty easily.

Obviously power is better than HR, I think that's clear - but plenty of people train effectively with HR. Before powermeters were available people were still able to train effectively using HR, and most other sports only have HR to use and they seem to get on fine. It's only in cycling where we have so much data available.

Power is the gold standard of training metrics in cycling and I absolutely agree with that but I think it's misleading to suggest or imply you can't train effectively using HR. Not to mention discouraging for anyone looking for training advice only to be told they need to shell out a few hundred on a power meter and their £20 HR meter is useless, which is the impression you seem to get on here occasionally.

StillGoing

bobmcstuff wrote:

philthy3 wrote:

Power is the gold standard of training metrics in cycling and I absolutely agree with that but I think it's misleading to suggest or imply you can't train effectively using HR. Not to mention discouraging for anyone looking for training advice only to be told they need to shell out a few hundred on a power meter and their £20 HR meter is useless, which is the impression you seem to get on here occasionally.

I don't think anyone has suggested that? The question was about using both. If you have both, my inclination is to forget HR and rely on power as it is the most accurate, instant with the data and not unduly affected by other factors. If all you've got is a HR monitor, then I agree, it is better than nothing, but I'd go by perceived effort over it.

taon24

I would suggest that percieved effort (PE) is precisely nothing, and that if it is better than a HR monitor then people are decreeing that HR is worse than nothing.
I agree that power is the optimal metric for training, and I don't think anyone has ever disputed that. However I would suggest that collecting data for HR is both cheap (less than £70 for a decent monitor) and can provide useful additional information, both during an exercise and about long term trends of your bodies response to exercise. The alternative is percieved effort, which is free, but very difficult to get objective data from after the exercise, as few people record PE as they go along.
A sensible power meter is likely to be nearer £500 and therefore a much bigger investment.

bobmcstuff

philthy3 wrote:

bobmcstuff wrote:

philthy3 wrote:

Power is the gold standard of training metrics in cycling and I absolutely agree with that but I think it's misleading to suggest or imply you can't train effectively using HR. Not to mention discouraging for anyone looking for training advice only to be told they need to shell out a few hundred on a power meter and their £20 HR meter is useless, which is the impression you seem to get on here occasionally.

I don't think anyone has suggested that? The question was about using both. If you have both, my inclination is to forget HR and rely on power as it is the most accurate, instant with the data and not unduly affected by other factors. If all you've got is a HR monitor, then I agree, it is better than nothing, but I'd go by perceived effort over it.

Several people have said it's a poor training metric etc. thus implying (maybe just to the uninitiated) that power is the only thing worth bothering with.

Perceived effort is the only thing you can sensibly use for short very hard efforts (without a PM), clearly, but I find that longer threshold and below efforts are best from HR, as perceived effort seems to go up towards the end of a longer effort (i.e., holding 175bpm is fine to begin with but after 20 minutes it feels much, much harder).

StillGoing

Oh the days when I could hit and sustain 175bpm. HR and perceived effort are for me impracticable. Because of my heart condition, my HR is going to go towards the upper zones almost as soon as I sit on the bike. I can feel as if i'm in zone 2/3 for perceived effort, but the HR trace will show I'm in zone 4/5.

Alex_Simmons/RST

If you are quickly hitting and sustaining a HR that occurs when riding a hard 20-min or threshold type effort, then it's very likely that your power output started far too hard and then faded throughout the effort. Well paced efforts will see a gradual rise in HR all through the effort, and initially it may take 2-3 minutes for HR to reach "threshold" level, even though your power output has already been there for some time.