Heart Rate Or Power

[Dunners Dan]

Hi Guys,
Could anyone share their experiences with training to heart rate zones or power levels, I myself have always used my own heart rate zones & based my training around this, but am I missing out?

I would use both - power and the heart rate. When doing intervals, power is the most accurate gauger of your intensity as there is a lag between the power you put out and your heart rate, which is why near the end of an interval, your heart rate has gotten that much higher. Using the HRM is good, you can measure how much effort your aerobic system is putting in to output a certain amount of power. You can track your improvements over time with this.

Check out my cycling blog:

Daniel Carruthers

 

[SolarEnergy]

One of your many errors is you think you know what I am thinking. It is a simple point. I am not aware of any evidence that shows a PM improves training outcome, over traditional techniques, regardless of how it is used. It is like a belief in God. There is no evidence supporting God's existence yet many believe it to be true. Nothing wrong with that as long as you understand that you can't prove your contention. You shouldn't take my comments regarding a PM personally.

Indirectly, or I should rather say Implicitly there's a lot of evidence that a PM might improve training outcome.

Your *beliefs in God* analogy is fallacious (at best). A tool known for reporting accurate data should not be compared with any religion.

It's better to compare tools with tools (concrete), meals with meals (fairly concrete), religions with religions (abstract) or at worst, religions with philosophies (also abstract).

For example, a power meter can easily be compared with a weighing scale. Not sure that you'd find any evidence that using such a scale can help you loosing weight. Yet, that doesn't mean that a weighing scale should be compared to believing in God.

 

[fergie]

The problem is Frank will argue that measures are good when it suits him like Jose improving from 270 - 404 watts then measures are bad when we show that it was a pretty poor measure to start with and 325 watts is a more accurate reflection of this chaps power at two different points. That science is good when it's his beloved Luttrell study and biased when the numerous methodological flaws in that study are pointed out. That efficiency is good when it is some scant data supporting Gimmickcranks but bad when it is suggested that Lance improved from years of training on the bike and the improvements in efficiency in Luttrell were well within the potential error of measurement not that sufficient information was given or provided on the calibration of gas analysis equipment. I believe Frank understands all this but keeps posting his bulls**t to confuse and seek out that 1/1000 person who is dumb enough to believe a 40% improvement in performance is realistic.

 

[sub7bikes.co.uk]

Hi guys,
Thanks for all the comments,I found them very interesting.Decided to try a Power Tap unit, so no douubt I'll have some more questions!!!
Best Regards