New HRM or venture in to Power training

vinnymarsden

Going back to the OP's topic...lol..

Did you buy a new HM strap or drop the bomb on a power meter?
Me personally...I would use a PM...and HRM just to make sure I was not going to explode my heart!!!

topcattim

I'd recommend just checking that the OP is wearing the HRM strap properly. I was beginning to despair of a previous strap, very unreliable signals, even though I would take care to moisten it before use, and to wash it about once every 10 rides or so. Then I just started wearing it a little bit lower, more directly over the heart (human biology never having been my strong point at school), and it's been fine since...

Team4Luke

Imposter wrote:

Not sure that's correct really. All HR does is give you an approximation of effort at aerobic levels. At anything above 89-90%, or for intervals, it becomes pretty much useless anyway.

If it is intervals that are required then yes.
But the gains in fitness and actual speed on the road all come from steady state endurance rides using different zones (HR or watts) thus any ride done at that properly controlled will result in a steady if not set heart rate figure=the same as riding at a set power figure. Even Fabian Cancellera recently said many people fail in their ability to actually train themselves to hold the effort, out right power is less important, the ability to hold it is where training is effective and even using a HR is perfect just the same for that.

Team4Luke

SmoggySteve wrote:

Imposter wrote:

Not sure that's correct really. All HR does is give you an approximation of effort at aerobic levels. At anything above 89-90%, or for intervals, it becomes pretty much useless anyway.

This. Heartrate can be effected by too many variables. Fatigue, hydration, temperature.... power is power no matter what the terrain or wind or if you're sat on a turbo your effort is the same.

this is not an accurate statement at all, many say this without backing it up, you are saying that all these variables effect someone using HR but not someone using power.
Your power will for certain be effected by fatigue, hydration, temperature and you will have to go off perception of feeling in that for example "struggling to hold my usual 250 watts today normally feels easier than this" so you might even give up, reduce your power to get through the session or shorten your session on that basis many probably would and possibly not have needed to.
Riding to HR yes could well for example see lower bpm and could well equally give the session up, for me with a lot of knowledge and experience of HR and training (I know when to stop or not continue a session as a result of just really knowing my body) I would continue on and keep working hard until I get HR back up potentially using more power than I ought to but results in a very effective overloaded session - if I am overloaded from training and not from other variables then these become extremely effective in creating quite large gains.
If you are really suffering from any of these variable regardless of power/HR then you should not be training, in the first instance ensure these variable have not taken place.

imposter2.0

Team4Luke wrote:

SmoggySteve wrote:

Imposter wrote:

Not sure that's correct really. All HR does is give you an approximation of effort at aerobic levels. At anything above 89-90%, or for intervals, it becomes pretty much useless anyway.

This. Heartrate can be effected by too many variables. Fatigue, hydration, temperature.... power is power no matter what the terrain or wind or if you're sat on a turbo your effort is the same.

this is not an accurate statement at all, many say this without backing it up, you are saying that all these variables effect someone using HR but not someone using power.

It's completely accurate. Your HR number is what it is and your power number is what it is. Your power number is an actual indication of the effort (ie output) you are making. Your HR is simply an indication of how fast your heart is beating - nothing more. HR is influenced by too many variables to be an accurate gauge of effort, whereas your power number is always going to reflect how hard you are pushing on the pedals, regardless of whatever other variables are in play.

stueys

Imposter wrote:

.....Your HR is simply an indication of how fast your heart is beating - nothing more. HR is influenced by too many variables to be an accurate gauge of effort....

Your heart rate is good indicator of the effort going in. If I track all of my data (that has both power and heart rate) there is a very clear collation between power increasing and heart rate following. It also falls when my power falls. Heart rate is subject to variables but to argue it doesn't track effort is misleading. It tracks effort but it can be influenced.

smoggysteve

Stueys wrote:

Imposter wrote:

.....Your HR is simply an indication of how fast your heart is beating - nothing more. HR is influenced by too many variables to be an accurate gauge of effort....

Your heart rate is good indicator of the effort going in. If I track all of my data (that has both power and heart rate) there is a very clear collation between power increasing and heart rate following. It also falls when my power falls. Heart rate is subject to variables but to argue it doesn't track effort is misleading. It tracks effort but it can be influenced.

If I drank a double espresso I am sure my heart rate would be faster than normal while resting. Thats what caffeine can do. Does it mean I am working harder? Heart rate is useful. No one is denying that. It is just very easy to influence and give false readings wheras a power meter will not be influenced by anything other than what you put through it.

imposter2.0

Stueys wrote:

Imposter wrote:

.....Your HR is simply an indication of how fast your heart is beating - nothing more. HR is influenced by too many variables to be an accurate gauge of effort....

Your heart rate is good indicator of the effort going in.

For steady state aerobic efforts below around 85% MHR then that's probably true, especially if you don't have a PM. Either way, the effort going in (ie input) is somewhat irrelevant if you already have a way of tracking the effort coming out (ie output).

ForumNewbie

Imposter wrote:

Stueys wrote:

Imposter wrote:

.....Your HR is simply an indication of how fast your heart is beating - nothing more. HR is influenced by too many variables to be an accurate gauge of effort....

Your heart rate is good indicator of the effort going in.

For steady state aerobic efforts below around 85% MHR then that's probably true, especially if you don't have a PM. Either way, the effort going in (ie input) is somewhat irrelevant if you already have a way of tracking the effort coming out (ie output).

I don't have a PM but I understand what you are saying about power being the more important measurement. However I would have thought it would be useful in also measuring your HR alongside your power output for the following reason. If for example you started off training averaging, say 200 watts over a ride at an average HR of say 150 bpm, and after say a few months training were able to average 200 watts over a ride at a lower average HR of say 140 bpm, i.e. with less effort, is that not evidence that you are getting fitter?

imposter2.0

In principle yes it would be. Providing you could guarantee a reliable, consistent HR output every time which you could compare to your power number. But you can't really guarantee that, for the reasons given earlier. Other indications would be just as (un)reliable in that situation though, such as a reduce time or increased average speed for whatever route you were riding.

Alex_Simmons/RST

ForumNewbie wrote:

Imposter wrote:

Stueys wrote:

Imposter wrote:

.....Your HR is simply an indication of how fast your heart is beating - nothing more. HR is influenced by too many variables to be an accurate gauge of effort....

Your heart rate is good indicator of the effort going in.

For steady state aerobic efforts below around 85% MHR then that's probably true, especially if you don't have a PM. Either way, the effort going in (ie input) is somewhat irrelevant if you already have a way of tracking the effort coming out (ie output).

I don't have a PM but I understand what you are saying about power being the more important measurement. However I would have thought it would be useful in also measuring your HR alongside your power output for the following reason. If for example you started off training averaging, say 200 watts over a ride at an average HR of say 150 bpm, and after say a few months training were able to average 200 watts over a ride at a lower average HR of say 140 bpm, i.e. with less effort, is that not evidence that you are getting fitter?

A lower HR at same power is not an indicator of improved fitness if you are not actually capable of putting out more power.

Now you say it's with "less effort" which is a reasonable but subjective measure, or what we call rate of perceived exertion. That however is not a HR indicator, rather it's an RPE indicator. Power + RPE is pretty darn good.

When it comes down to it, it's how much power you can sustain over duration of relevance that determines changes in fitness*, not what your HR response happens to be.


* and indeed what elements of fitness change when you examine the wider power-duration spectrum

ForumNewbie

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

ForumNewbie wrote:

Imposter wrote:

Stueys wrote:

Imposter wrote:

.....Your HR is simply an indication of how fast your heart is beating - nothing more. HR is influenced by too many variables to be an accurate gauge of effort....

Your heart rate is good indicator of the effort going in.

For steady state aerobic efforts below around 85% MHR then that's probably true, especially if you don't have a PM. Either way, the effort going in (ie input) is somewhat irrelevant if you already have a way of tracking the effort coming out (ie output).

I don't have a PM but I understand what you are saying about power being the more important measurement. However I would have thought it would be useful in also measuring your HR alongside your power output for the following reason. If for example you started off training averaging, say 200 watts over a ride at an average HR of say 150 bpm, and after say a few months training were able to average 200 watts over a ride at a lower average HR of say 140 bpm, i.e. with less effort, is that not evidence that you are getting fitter?

A lower HR at same power is not an indicator of improved fitness if you are not actually capable of putting out more power.

I was thinking in that example the rider would be capable of putting out more power. A better example might be if I was a club rider pushing myself to my limits to keep up with the other riders, but once I became fitter, by putting out the same power I would be keep up with the others with less effort (lower HR).

Now you say it's with "less effort" which is a reasonable but subjective measure, or what we call rate of perceived exertion. That however is not a HR indicator, rather it's an RPE indicator. Power + RPE is pretty darn good.

All I meant is that when I put in less effort on a ride (at my age I don't always feel the need to try and go flat out) my average HR is lower. I would have thought the fitter I get I would be able to put out more power at a lower HR?

Alex_Simmons/RST

ForumNewbie wrote:

All I meant is that when I put in less effort on a ride (at my age I don't always feel the need to try and go flat out) my average HR is lower. I would have thought the fitter I get I would be able to put out more power at a lower HR?

Thanks for clarification. Yes, in general that's the case, although it's a pretty insensitive measure/indicator. Putting out more power is what matters.

That said, one can also have a suppressed HR when performance (power output) declines, so it takes care to know which. It can also be elevated when performance declines and when performance improves. See the problem?

ForumNewbie

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

ForumNewbie wrote:

All I meant is that when I put in less effort on a ride (at my age I don't always feel the need to try and go flat out) my average HR is lower. I would have thought the fitter I get I would be able to put out more power at a lower HR?

Thanks for clarification. Yes, in general that's the case, although it's a pretty insensitive measure/indicator. Putting out more power is what matters.

That said, one can also have a suppressed HR when performance (power output) declines, so it takes care to know which. It can also be elevated when performance declines and when performance improves. See the problem?

Thanks Alex, yes I think I understand what you mean.

For me, being an older leisure cyclist (late 50s) who is also trying to keep fit, a HR monitor alone is fine. My average HR confirms to me how much effort I have put into the ride, and if I have worked hard I generally have a better average speed than my usual, although it's not fast at all compared to most on here

I think if I was younger and a competitive cyclist, I would probably still have a HR alongside a Power Meter. A lot of the pros I see on Strava have HR stats showing as well as power so HR stats must be of some use.

Alex_Simmons/RST

The important thing is that you ride and (mostly) enjoy it. In general the fitter you are the more fun you can have
Use whatever tools / aids helps with that! Everyone is different with what helps them.

For general guidance on intensity of aerobic effort, HR or perceived exertion is fine, provided people recognise the limitations of HR and PE.

If all one uses power meter for is the same thing (i.e. general guidance to intensity of effort), then I don't see a lot of point in having a power meter as that's about the lowest-fi use of power meter data there is and one can do just as well without it. Using power meter data opens up a whole range of other opportunities that real time intensity guidance does not.