What's new

Cycling specific strength training

Never really done a Max HR test but I rarely if ever see it go above 168. Think I've seen 170 once or twice so maybe around that. At the end of my 1min intervals this morning I was around 165.


Haha yeah but that was at like almost 600 watts for like minutes at a time wasn't it?? Yikers.

I can stay at 165 and still have all my wits about me, look around and even take selfies if I'm really motivated to. Not quite chatting about the weather, working, but not cooking it - I can comfortably stay at that for say, well I know I can for at least a half hour.

170 no no selfies, working hard but can still stay there climbing indefinitely.

175, now it's almost max. But I know I can stay there for about 10 mins, maybe more.

178-185, this is the slobbering stage for me. 2 or 3 mins? here then it's game over unless I step off the gas.
 
Sigh - that's not how it works.

Fatigue can result in higher - or lower - heart rates.
Improved fitness can result in higher heart rates. Or lower heart rates.
Heart rate can fluctuate both up and down even as power and perceived effort are constant.
If you're fatigued, maybe your heart rate goes up - or maybe it goes down. Would you know which was which on any given day?
Maybe you're actually working harder, or not working hard enough. Without power, how would you know?

HR is a *response* to the power we're putting out, and it reacts with a lag. If my HR stopped rising during an interval, does that mean I'm nearing my limit, or does that mean I'm fitter?

I'll repeat - HR is not a good estimator of effort.

We have power meters now. A watt is a watt is a watt.

Over time? I absolutely agree that HR can be useful as a trend monitor. Lower resting heart rate is a good indicator of improved fitness.
With training as you get fitter, you'd expect to (generally) see a higher max heart rate, and a (generally) lower average heart rate at the same level of power.
I certainly use both HR and power in combination to get an overall picture of how things are going.

But using HR as a metric for specific workouts and such simply is not that useful.
HR is not responsive enough and fluctuates far too much due to external factors to be useful.

 
Well @WattsUp maybe it's rifht in your name, I may not make any headway trying to convince you of anything but I really am trying to help, rather than win an argument or anything.

In the end. I appreciate it all since you've inadvertently helped me solidify my thinking -

HR tells you how long you can continue to do what you're doing

summarizes things well I think.

I'll watch the video later when I get the chance promise, for now have a good morning and um.. thumbs up!
 
@WattsUp you are agreeing with each other. @armmewitharmony is training with power but he's riding by HR when out on the climbs. I know, I've been there with him.

Well you see, this is the thing - if we want to do the best we can (for example if its a race or if you're trying to set a personal best on STRAVA, something like that) or br in a controlled, or let's call it a more managed pace on a given day or given situation, HR tells you what you need to know. Your HR will tell you at what percentage of your ability (wattage) you\re capable of or where you're at on that particualr day.. If you're out racing or out on a ride, this is what you need to know. The power numbers are essentially, irrelevant.

Training is different. This is where you're not riding, you're working on improving your conditioning. This is where power numbers and HR, the relationship between the two may be of more interest to you. Playing a game of power number ping pong is fine if you've got some kind of training approach in mind, it could also be complete nonsense as well. Using the information to suit your overall purpose is the key, and that will vary depending on the situation at hand.

Read that again.

You are right, he is right. Internet spat over.
 
I'm trying to help as well.

HR tells you how long you can continue to do what you're doing

No it doesn't. HR can fluctuate for any number of reasons that have nothing to do with your ability to put out power. If you're using HR to gauge how hard you can or can't go on any given day you're doing it wrong.

Anyway, I'll bow out because this is clearly a waste of time. You're not going to change your opinion and I don't want this to end up a shouting match, I like the forums too much.
 
Last edited:
I'm trying to help as well.



No it doesn't. HR can fluctuate for any number of reasons that have nothing to do with your ability to put out power. If you're using HR to gauge how hard you can or can't go on any given day you're doing it wrong.

Anyway, I'll bow out because this is clearly a waste of time. You're not going to change your opinion and I don't want this to end up a shouting match, I like the forums too much.

I hope nobody\s shouting - we all know that usually ends badly lol - anyways now we're probably back to what andy and oreo said in the beginning LMAO - power tells you what youre doing, and HR tells you how long you can keep doing it. There, that's it I think in a nutshell, disagree all you like.
 
You can't use heart rate to measure effort, which means it's useless to use as an estimate of training intensity.

For instance - same workout, done a few days apart (warm-up workout).
Looking at 10mn peak power:
First workout: Power avg 185 (NP 195), HR avg 119
Second workout: Power avg 184 (NP 193) HR avg 131

Not sure I get this. HR isn't an estimate of training intensity? How so? I've always assumed that HR is a good was to show you the intensity that our body is giving out. Power shoes you how much of your effort is being put through the drive chain. Your example above shows this.
On Saturday I did s 53min effort at average 312w. This morning I did the same route (but had to cut it short due to time constraints) so got 40mins at an average of 311w. Were they the same intensity? Hell no. But from just looking at power,m you would think so. After my ride on Saturday, I was pooped. This morning I felt as fresh as a daisy after I finished. Saturday's ride was done in 32c heat. This morning it was around 16-17c. I agree that power is a great tool and for me, I find it more useful than a HRM. But I also find having a HRM really useful.
 
@WattsUp sorry to lead this thread a little off topic but I was a slightly curious as to why you raced the other month in trainers (sneakers) and flat pedals? You seem like you are pretty seriously into your training so I was a little surprised to see you on flat pedals. From what I've read on this thread you seem like a "marginal gains" guy who likes to analyse his ride data thoroughly. Although we don't agree about the use of HRMs for training, you seem to have a far greater knowledge than me about training and training techniques (I barely even know what an FTP is).
 
I'm clearly not as good or as serious a biker as most on this forum so I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong, (and I don't own a power meter) but..

Power meter gives you a measure against an absolute value... watts (useful info)
HRM gives you a measure of how hard you're working specific to 'you' (also useful)

I've had HRMs for years, and until power meters came along, they seemed plenty good enough to gague my fitness level and effort and plan training. After all, runners use them pretty effectively in this and have no way to train using power output as a measure. Having moved from running to cycling when I blew out my knee, I still feel really comfortable using only a HRM. Still, I'd love to have a power meter to get data that shows me how I'm doing against an absolute value... power output, but at my level I just can't justify the expense. Having both would be ideal though, so if anyone wants to surprise me at Christmas time, feel free.
 
Huh? I have and use a HR monitor because it (probably) has use as a 'rear-view mirror' metric and as a long-term trend monitor.
But the idea that HR is useful as a serious training metric - particularly on a workout-by-workout basis - is rather.....out-dated, shall we say.
I don't mean to argue, I am just trying to understand your point of view better: Andy in his reply to my question, which sparked this exchange, stated that for him there is value in using heart rate as a training metric. Can you flesh out your difference in opinion (if there is one)?

I always thought that heart rate could be a useful metric that may prevent you from pushing too hard, at least on longer efforts where the pulse is steady. Say, if on a hot, sunny day I need a HR zone 3 pulse to produce zone 2 power, I know I need to back off a little if I want to do a zone 2 ride. Does that make sense? (Again, I have never had a power meter, and only rode with a heart rate monitor for a short while.)
 
why you raced the other month in trainers (sneakers) and flat pedals?

Those aren't trainers/sneakers or flat pedals. I use the Shimano SM-SH51 cleat set. A little harder to clip out vs the SH56s, but I'm on a trainer the majority of the time and I also prefer having the cleats recessed into the shoe as walking around is easier (since my trainer is in a room with tatami flooring).
 
Last edited:
HRM gives you a measure of how hard you're working specific to 'you' (also useful)
No, because heart rate is subjective. Power is not. 'Specific to you' doesn't mean the change is consistent (in terms of scale or direction) from day to day, even with the same person.

Power is a more accurate measure of how hard you're working. HR responds to that work, but not always in the same way. A higher (or lower) HR may (or may) not have any bearing on how hard you're working, or on how hard / long you're able to do it.


Say, if on a hot, sunny day I need a HR zone 3 pulse to produce zone 2 power, I know I need to back off a little if I want to do a zone 2 ride.
So your HR is in zone 3. So what? Is that limiting your ability to produce zone 2 power? (No). Is it producing more fatigue being in HR zone 3? (No). If we assume (for the case here) that your HR elevated only because of the heat, your heart rate elevated a bit precisely so that you could continue to produce zone 2 power. Why would you need to back off?

Put another way - power is an accurate measure of output. HR is an inconsistent measure of your body's response to that output. If you were basing effort on HR, you may be backing off (or going too hard) because you think your HR is higher (lower) than it 'should be' - even though it may have nothing to do with your ability to put out power for a given amount of time. Which is why training with power is vastly more effective - it's not subjective. A watt is a watt is a watt.

If you get older your max HR declines, but that doesn't necessarily mean FTP drops. My max HR now is lower than 10 years ago, but my FTP is higher.

Not sure I get this. HR isn't an estimate of training intensity?

No, it is not. HR can vary with intensity, but HR itself is not a measure of intensity - because, as noted numerous times before, HR lags the actual effort, and it is affected by things such as hydration or your position on the bike etc. Anything that can impact HR but does not reflect intensity inherently reduces how useful HR is as a measure of intensity.

On Saturday I did s 53min effort at average 312w. This morning I did the same route (but had to cut it short due to time constraints) so got 40mins at an average of 311w. Were they the same intensity? Hell no. But from just looking at power,m you would think so.
Er, no, we wouldn't, not if you're only give us average power. That's what normalized power is for.

HRMs are popular because they've been around longer and they're cheap. Runners use HRMs because it's kinda all they have ('better than nothing') although there are signs that's starting to change as well.

There are uses for HR especially when used in conjunction with power. HR is (probably) better than nothing.

But there is literally no reason to gauge intensity based on HR if power data is available.
 
Last edited:
Power is a more accurate measure of how hard you're working. HR responds to that work, but not always in the same way. A higher (or lower) HR may (or may) not have any bearing on how hard you're working, or on how hard / long you're able to do it.
In a previous post, I made the distinction between athletes having separate power and life bars, and a power meter gives you a measure of where you are on the power bar. Heart rate at least in some cases correlates to the size of the life bar for a given day.
So your HR is in zone 3. So what? Is that limiting your ability to produce zone 2 power? (No). Is it producing more fatigue being in HR zone 3? (No).
In my experience, the answer is usually "Yes", I cannot sustain the same pace/power output for as long. Intuitively it is quite clear, because my body expends energy on cooling itself, which is energy that is diverted from the legs. Put another way, the total energy output may even be the same, but you have a diminished capacity available for propulsion. Similarly, when you have stark changes in altitude, the capacity to do work is diminished and you need more blood flow (= higher heart rate) to supply the same amount of oxygen. If you are cycling in the Atacama desert towards the alto plano, you will have to adjust your pace (= power output), because you won't be able to sustain it for as long.

What you write here contradicts my experience. Can you explain why you think that heart rate does not matter here? Or link to something that explains this?
There are uses for HR especially when used in conjunction with power. HR is (probably) better than nothing.

But there is literally no reason to gauge intensity based on HR if power data is available.
I don't want to speak for @leicaman, but the way I understood his argument was not that keeping track of your heart rate is a replacement for a power meter, it is not, but that heart rate measures something complementary to power, that can help you gauge performance.
 
In a previous post, I made the distinction between athletes having separate power and life bars, and a power meter gives you a measure of where you are on the power bar. Heart rate at least in some cases correlates to the size of the life bar for a given day.
And as I explained, the utility therein is next to nothing, because you have no idea how HR correlates to the size of the bar on any give day. It might be bigger or smaller depending on any host of factors.

The idea that HR correlates to your ability to put out power on any given day is factually incorrect. HR can be normal. It can be elevated. It can be suppressed. All with little to no relation to the power you might be able to generate on any given day. This isn't opinion. This is science and it's not even that controversial anymore, except some old-timers holding out with their HRMs because 'that's how we've always done it'.

And with that, I'm really bowing out. Feel free to do what you've always been doing, if you think that's working for you.
 
Sigh - that's not how it works.

Fatigue can result in higher - or lower - heart rates.
Improved fitness can result in higher heart rates. Or lower heart rates.
Heart rate can fluctuate both up and down even as power and perceived effort are constant.
If you're fatigued, maybe your heart rate goes up - or maybe it goes down. Would you know which was which on any given day?
Maybe you're actually working harder, or not working hard enough. Without power, how would you know?

HR is a *response* to the power we're putting out, and it reacts with a lag. If my HR stopped rising during an interval, does that mean I'm nearing my limit, or does that mean I'm fitter?

I'll repeat - HR is not a good estimator of effort.

We have power meters now. A watt is a watt is a watt.

Over time? I absolutely agree that HR can be useful as a trend monitor. Lower resting heart rate is a good indicator of improved fitness.
With training as you get fitter, you'd expect to (generally) see a higher max heart rate, and a (generally) lower average heart rate at the same level of power.
I certainly use both HR and power in combination to get an overall picture of how things are going.

But using HR as a metric for specific workouts and such simply is not that useful.
HR is not responsive enough and fluctuates far too much due to external factors to be useful.



Hey @WattsUp - coming in peace! hands up, guns holstered

Anyways just to let you know I finally had time to take alook at the vid - thanks for that. The three men were speaking about how power and HR relate to intervals in training, some racing situations, some anecdotes - I watched the first half. Not disagreeing with anything here, but I think it's worth noting they were not exactly scientists in white lab coats, they were three guys with cycling backgrounds perhaps wearing Trainerroad T-shirts.

Anyways sorry I have to admit I was lost in my own thoughts previously when we were exchanging messages, thinking about my own thing which is a little different to what you were (are) talking about. I think @Musashi13 is right, we're both right. Talking about different sides of the same coin perhaps, or maybe a different coin but a coin nonetheless. So again, as I said before I apprecieate the whole thing as it helped me understand something a little better, and well I hope at some point (or even now) you can look back at the thread and see it this way too.
 
That's the TrainerRoad CEO and two of his coaches. They know what they're talking about most of the time and they usually do their research before they jabber on about something but they are not scientists and everything they say affects their bank balance.

Training with Power is the best training method, no question. Nobody here has denied that fact.

When you put out 250w you are putting out 250w no matter what your HR says, that is not in dispute.

There are factors that limit your ability to put out that 250w forever and those are the factors being referred to when HR is being talked about by @armmewitharmony

Instead of watching his PM numbers when climbing he looks at his HR because he knows what HR he can hold for a given time.

I just did a session indoors without the AC and my HR was through the roof preventing me from hitting the power numbers I know I can usually hit because my body was working hard to try to cool me down and the energy I would have been using to drive the pedals was going elsewhere. On other days when well rested in better temperatures, I can maintain higher percentages of FTP for longer at lower HR and that lower HR is a factor in being able to maintain that power. The power is the same but my ability to keep it depends on many factors.
 
I wasn't trying to argue, I was trying to learn. Do you have some literature on the subject...

The benefits of power training are well documented here.

Amazon product ASIN 1934030554
This book helps you to understand, using power, the type of rider you are and how to train specifically for your goals.

If you have access to a power meter, I'd recommend trying the power profile test for sure.

>>>>>>>>>

I was surprised at all of heated debate about what heart rate is and what power is.

Again, I think using both, and understanding the merits of both, is the best case scenario.

The above book tells you all you need to know about power.

As for heart rate, here are a few ways I use it. Based on my own observations and experiences:

> using heart rate to monitor my fresheness

As has been pointed out, HR fluctuates with many things, heat, hydration, caffeine etc etc. The biggest factor which affects my heart rate is fatigue.

1. resting heart rate

An important value for me. As a general trend, this will decrease as you get fitter. Basically your heart is stronger and can pump a bigger volume of blood each beat.

Once you get good fitness, it will plateau.

So day to day, in response to training, a higher than normal resting heart rate in the morning tells me that I am tired.

If I am in the middle of a hard training block, this is to be expected, and I may not care too much. But if I have an event coming up, this is the alarm bell that tells me to stay in bed.

2. heart rate response and lag

As has been mentioned the heart rate value lags behind power which is instantaneous.

Understanding HR lag is useful.

I feel I understand my HR response. If I am rested and fresh, I can raise to LTHR in 1 minute.

If I'm really tired, I'll struggle to get through zone 3. Again, this is a sign to tell me to back off as necessary.

>using heart rate for intervals

The delayed response of HR means its not useful for short intervals.

For longer intervals, assuming I'm fresh, HR is a useful tool. Here, both power and heart rate are good to watch.

>using heart rate for pacing

Using HR to control your effort on a climb has been mentioned. Several years ago I was competitive in the hill climb scene and 180HR / 80rpm where my lock on values.

Now power is readily available, on a constant grade, for me, power is better.

But on an undulating course, I feel HR is a good value to watch. Power will fluctuate with ups and downs. But the time lag for HR helps me to keep a relatively constant effort. Using NP normalized power is the best way when pacing without heart rate.

>cross training and training load

In the winter I do quite a bit of cross training: running, snow shoes, football...

Using a HR monitor allows me to addd these workouts to bike workouts in Training Peaks, and monitor my fitness, freshness etc.

Above are just a few ways I think I use HR to benefit training.

Ride on!

Andy

https://www.facebook.com/biketrainingandracinginjapan/
 
Back
Top Bottom