This is the end...

[fergie]

Seems we all owe Frank Day a big apology and need a form a line to the right to swap our power meters for GimmickCranks...

Effects of high-intensity training by heart rate or power in well-trained cyclists
Department of Human Biology, Faculty of Health Sciences, UCT/MRC Research Unit for Exercise Science and Sports Medicine, University of Cape Town, The Sport Science Institute of South Africa


Abstract
The aim of this study was to determine whether the performance of cyclists after 4 weeks of high-intensity training improved similarly using either heart rate or power to prescribe training. Twenty-one well-trained men cyclists (age, 32 +/- 6 years; peak power output, 371 +/- 46 W) were randomly assigned to a power-based (GPOWER) or heart rate-based (GHEART) high-intensity training (HIT) group or a control group (GCONTROL). Training consisted of 8 repetitions of 4 minutes at either 80% of peak power output (GPOWER) or at the heart rate coinciding with 80% of peak power output (GHEART), with rest periods of 90 seconds. A 40-km time trial and VO2max test were performed before and after 8 training sessions. There were significant improvements (p < 0.05) in peak power output (GPOWER = 3.5%; GHEART = 5.0%) and 40-km time trial performance (GPOWER = 2.3%; GHEART = 2.1%) for both of the high-intensity groups. Although there were no significant differences between groups for these variables, when the data were analyzed using magnitude-based effects, the GHEART group showed greater probability of a "beneficial" effect for peak power output. The current general perception that prescribing training based only on power is more effective than prescribing training based on heart rate was not supported by the data from this study. Coaches who are unable to monitor progress frequently should prescribe training based on heart rate, when intervals are performed under stable conditions, because this may provide an additional advantage over prescribing training using power.

 

[tonyzackery]

Just a little facetious, Ferg? Yes? No? LOL!

Glad I haven't thrown out my heart rate monitor - just in case..."when intervals are performed under stable conditions" is the fly the in the ointment here - heart rate is just so variable due to too many factors...I'll continue with my Powertap, thank you very much...

 

[swampy1970]

showed greater probability of a "beneficial" effect for peak power output.

Greater probability aye? Sounds ace.

Given that I still monitor heart rate as well as power and use the PowerCranks I have all my bases covered

If the so called "well trained cyclists" saw big improvement in "peak power" and a 40km time trial in just 4 weeks then all that study does is show that they were probably not doing enough hard work in their regular training

 

[An old Guy]

Peak power output of 371w is pretty good if that is maintained for 1 hour. Not so good if maintained for a couple minutes.

But 8 repeats of 4 minutes at 80% (300w) seems very impressive.

 

[Fday]

Hey, Swampy. I thought I read in the study that the testing was done in the "off season" so some detraining and room for improvement could be expected. The purpose was not to show that interval training can improve results but to compare two supposedly equal training protocols except one used HRM and the other used PM as the intensity monitor.

Strangely, the HRM appeared to be superior, although the superiority did not reach statistical significance. The authors simply labeled the superiority as likely. From the study.



Now, in the past I have simply asked those wedded to the PM as a superior training/racing tool what the evidence is that supports such a conclusion. There was none. This study was designed to fill that void.("Despite the popularity and accuracy of using power meters
to monitor performance during training and racing, no studies have validated their use to prescribe training. Specifically, the use of power in preference to heart rate to prescribe training has not been justified. Accordingly, the aim of this study was to compare the training adaptations and performance characteristics of well-trained cyclists after 4 weeks of HIT using either heart rate or power output to prescribe the training intensity.") I'll bet the results surprised both the researchers and most of those who hang out here, although I doubt this one study will change anyone's bias.

This study does point out how opinions we form can be way off base even though we have substantial experience with what we are talking about. It might give some pause (but probably won't) that perhaps their opinions about things they have zero experience with might be even further off base.

 

[fergie]

The purpose was not to show that interval training can improve results but to compare two supposedly equal training protocols except one used HRM and the other used PM as the intensity monitor.

The training protocols were not equal as pacing iwas not identical. Subjects were given a target heart rate or wattage to sustain. One of the conclusions was that those training by heart rate would need to spend less time testing as the training heart rate would stay stable over time. At least the 4 weeks of this study although I have experienced athletes, myself included, whose HR zone at anaerobic threshold drop by over 20 beats per minute. The claimed benefit was the HR group would need less testing while the ever improving (if the training is right) nature of wattage would require more frequent testing to set training zones. This fails to take into account two things.

The validity and reliability of heart rate zones determined from lab tests. Have seen many Conconi and IAT tests where the exercise physiologist is guessing where the turnpoints are. Also in the lab as out on the road we have no idea whether it is the intensity of the effort that is causing HR response or temperature, test apprehension, hotness of the person performing the test etc.

For the power meter user every ride is a lab test. One that is valid, measuring performance in the field, in the races and using a test protocol that is 100% specific if measuring power while racing.

Strangely, the HRM appeared to be superior, although the superiority did not reach statistical significance.

Quite misleading. You are the stickler for statistical significance. At .05 there is no difference between the groups.

Now, in the past I have simply asked those wedded to the PM as a superior training/racing tool what the evidence is that supports such a conclusion. There was none. This study was designed to fill that void.("Despite the popularity and accuracy of using power meters
to monitor performance during training and racing, no studies have validated their use to prescribe training.

There have been plenty but you choose to bury your head in the sand. Nimmerrichter et al. (2011) and two studies by Lim et al. (2011) add to the work of Ebert, Schumacher and Vogt in the area.

Accordingly, the aim of this study was to compare the training adaptations and performance characteristics of well-trained cyclists after 4 weeks of HIT using either heart rate or power output to prescribe the training intensity.

They hypothesis was no difference between intervention groups and this is what they found. I suspect they would have found similar results if one group performed intervals watching a comedy show and the other group watched cartoons.

This study does point out how opinions we form can be way off base even though we have substantial experience with what we are talking about. It might give some pause (but probably won't) that perhaps their opinions about things they have zero experience with might be even further off base.

This study shows nothing as there was no difference between both intervention groups.

Why should I go by experience for Gimmickcranks when there are still no studies showing any performance benefit?