Interval training using a HRM...

Training with/by heart rate is still pretty widespread, although training with power meters is gaining ground pretty quickly. Certainly for shorter intervals, power measurement is preferrable due to the lag in response inherent in heart rate.

As long as you know the limitations of training with an HRM, I think you can progress a fair way without resort to the more expensive power measurement.

Training with an HRM is a bit of an odd thing in rowing, since using a ergo is essentially using a power meter, so heart rate is always a bit secondary to 500m split time.

I also come from a background in rowing and the only analogy to it in cycling is a TT really. Road racing, as has already been mentioned, is a much less consistent effort and so intervals are really important.

Training with HR will do fine for the moment, and if you get into cycling more than a PM may be a good investment.

Im a big fan of HR based interval training - for me it helps with getting to the peak, staying at a constant level for whatever time, and then making sure there's a big enough drop to make it an interval. All stuff I found it hard to do when working from "perceived effort" (I cant tell the difference between knackered, totally knackered and actually a bit too knackered to be any use)

chill123 wrote:

as the others have said yes, it is essentially the same. maybe not as accurate as power meters but HRMs can be a great help in structuring and measuring your training.

HRMs are not inaccurate, they do a good job of accurately measuring your heart rate. They don't however measure your power output, which is what matters.

HRMs are handy to provide an indication of the intensity at which you are riding (which is the most important element in training), in particular when travelling at aerobic power/effort levels - but are not much use for shorter efforts, e.g. hard efforts of 4-5 min or less. So for general training and fitness development, used well they can be a good aid. Just be aware of their limitations (e.g. cardiac drift, delayed response time, other factors that can influence HR and their lack of efficacy for short hard efforts).

Where they fall down is in providing an indication of changes in fitness, which of course they cannot do.

beatsystem wrote:

for example two minutes at a time up to so-called 2x20 training.

I always thought 2 x20 was two lots of twenty minutes! Am i wrong?

No, that is correct. Two 20-minute efforts with a 5-minute or so recovery in between.

My reading of Kleber's post is that intervals can vary from 2 mins up to around 20 minutes depending on what level you are trying to train at. Obviously 2 minute intervals can be at a much higher intensity than 20 minute intervals and you would do more repetitions (ie 8x2-mins).