Difficulty reaching target heart rate

[2LAP]

Originally posted by TiMan
>>the best measure of effort/intensity is effort itself (power output). HR is a dependent variable.

Yes HR is a dependent variable , but don't you think that this fact is indeed the main reason to take HR into serious consideration on any given ride, and base your effort *primarily* on HR . Isn't HR a better indicator of what is happening in ones body, and the resultant training affect, than power output?
We are, after all, trying to produce certain physiological training affects in the body when we ride at various intensities.

Yes, but unfortunately, perceived effort and HR can vary independant to whats happening at the pedals or physiologicaly (e.g. dehydration can increase both). One benefit of power is that its always a constant. Power and HR both have benefits but are both flawed, so both should be used.

Originally posted by TiMan
I think that power monitoring serves its best purpose by helping(motivating) one to improve power output...to make one a "powerful rider". But then again monitoring speed , time and HR should do the same.

Speed and HR vary with factors outside the control and unrelated to the physiology of the rider. While Time isn't very important without intesity (provided by either HR OR Power).

Originally posted by TiMan
I remember Hinualt "The Badger" saying that focusing on turning big gears FAST made him a powerful rider...perhaps its just that simple>>>develope the mental and physical ability to push a bigger gear faster while monitoring HR.

As a side....he latter on said that he had to learn to use "smaller gears" in the mountains and NOT focus so much on total power output all the time.

This would no doubt be training to perceived effort then, given that he couldn't measure power and had to 'perceive' the effort he was putting in. And pushing a 'bigger gear faster' is the same as increasing power.

Originally posted by TiMan
As Sanmi mentioned, ideally it would be best to train based on lacate readings as HR can can sometimes vary at various lactate levels(ie: LT threshold doesn't always come at the same HR..BUT it usually does in the fit rider I think)

So maybe in the near future we will see portable lactate monitoring meters on bikes, weighing in at only a couple hundred grams. These monitors might the be able to monitor lactate levels, say ever minute, by taking a drop of blood from a vein. I don't think this is science fiction fella's.

If I had to choose either a heart rate monitor or some type of power monitoring system then I would certainly choose the HR monitor. Damn those pro's though...they get both!

Good thread!

TiMan

I think that an oxygen uptake meter would be a great too to measure the aerobic metabolism; the current portable O2 meters being a bit expensive, hard to use and not very good for athletic performance.

As for the Lactate meter and buying a HR over a power meter initialy, I think I'm with you.

 

[ric_stern/RST]

Originally posted by TiMan, iresponded with >>

Yes HR is a dependent variable , but don't you think that this fact is indeed the main reason to take HR into serious consideration on any given ride, and base your effort *primarily* on HR .

>>Why? HR is dependent upon the intensity that you are riding at (power output) and various other factors (e.g., caffeine, anxiety, temperature, etc)

>>All HR does is tell you how fast your heart it's going.

Isn't HR a better indicator of what is happening in ones body,
>>no. it tells you how fast it's going


I think that power monitoring serves its best purpose by helping(motivating) one to improve power output...to make one a "powerful rider". But then again monitoring speed , time and HR should do the same.

>>speed/velocity are affected by environmental and topographical conditions, such that riding in a tailwind or downhill (whether you realise you are or not) will alter your velocity




I remember Hinualt "The Badger" saying that focusing on turning big gears FAST made him a powerful rider...perhaps its just that simple>>>develope the mental and physical ability to push a bigger gear faster while monitoring HR.

As a side....he latter on said that he had to learn to use "smaller gears" in the mountains and NOT focus so much on total power output all the time.

>>i'm not entirely sure if Hinault was measuring power or applying the terminology correctly, simply because when Hinault raced there was no "on the bike" power meters available.

>>it's perfectly possible to have a higher power in a lower gear (e.g., 42 x 21) versus a higher gear (e.g., 53 x 19)


As Sanmi mentioned, ideally it would be best to train based on lacate readings as HR can can sometimes vary at various lactate levels(ie: LT threshold doesn't always come at the same HR..BUT it usually does in the fit rider I think)

>>lactate can vary as well

>>power is really the best choice because it's what moves you down the road and is an objective measure of performance -- i.e., if you want to climb a hill faster then you need more power, want to TT faster you need more power, etc*

*i've assumed equipment and mass stays the same for that sentence

ric

 

[2LAP]

Originally posted by sanmi
I totally agree with you. HR is a better and easier parameter to train. If you monitor your physiological parameters overtime(Vo2max and lactate) at a given HR, you will find that they could be very consistant.
But you will find that your Vo2 and lactate could change largely at a given Power output overtime.
Example:
you do a field test or laboratory test.
- TEsta A: heart rate maintained at e.g., 135 b/m for 45 min.
you find that yout Vo2 and Lactate remain pretty constant. THis means that your metabolic stress is constant overtime.
-Test B: SAME (not mean) workload sustained over 45min. LEts say 200 Watts. You will find that a linear increase overtime in VO2 as well as LActate, which means that your metabolic stress is higher overtime. Even a workload of 275Watts sutained over 10minutes elicits different parameters from minute 1 to minute 10.

I'm not so sure if I agree.

Given that HR tends to creep up over a bout of exercise, often power will decrease over the session. As the factors causing the HR to creep up are not limited to O2 and Lactate production (i.e. catecholamines, dehydration, heat, etc.) and that HR is not controled by O2 or lactate in the blood directly; then you will also get changes in the O2 and Lactate when at a constant HR.

The Test B example would only exist if the power was above MLSS, in which case slow component of O2 and lactate accumulation would be seen. At powers below MLSS, you might even get reductions in O2 and lactate following an abrupt rise at the onset of the exercise.

While I am a big fan of HRM's for setting training intensities; HR provides no more information than how many times a minute your heart beats (although we do know that heart rate is related to cardiac output which is related to O2), which we use to measure an assumed relationship between HR and other factors important in training.

All in all power and HR meters are not that great, but they're all we have so we have to make do.