why do you use a heart-rate monitor



Roadie_scum said:
VO2 is another potential measure of workload (not of practical import in training because of diificulties in measurement) - it lags significantly under various conditions and has many possible variables affecting it. Does this make VO2 meaningless?

Well, I've come to the conclusion that VO2 is pretty meaningless WRT training. How can you use it?

Roadie_scum said:
Power at ventilatory threshold has been found to correlate well with actual real world TT performance

[snip]

HR at ventilatory thresholds has been shown to remain constant or close thereto over the length of a competitive season

[snip]

there is some evidence HR would be a very useful tool, while power would have to be constantly recalibrated to take into account training effect.

Andy Coggan, a frequent contributor here, has posted here and on wattage about an instance where he did a TT in which he hit the same power he routinely hits during training, yet his HR ave. was 20 beats lower than normal. He ended up doing just fine in the TT, but darn good thing he was pacing by power rather than HR.

Yes, Power does have to be recalibrated every few weeks, however, HR has to be recalibrated every few minutes to be valuable.

Roadie_scum said:
Do I totally agree with what I've outlined above? Not really - feel free to buy me a power monitor, I'd rather use one of those. Can you say HR is worthless as a training tool? Definitely not.

By the way, I don't need a power monitor to understand the criticisms of HR you are making - I fully understand and essentially agree under many circumstances. It just doesn't make HR worthless.

I have yet to see a single practical instance of HR being useful for cycling training. In the long haul, HR tracks power pretty well, but everyone uses HR to prescribe daily workouts. Can you train by HR? Certainly, but I think that people have a false sense of precision when doing so. CTS used to have zones which are either 4 or 6 beats wide and even they are now changing their stance as to the usefullness of HR training. If the same metabolic load can produce HRs that are 20 beats different from day to day, how can you use HR to train?

BTW, used powertaps (which are the best PMs out there in my opinion) can be had for as little as $450 used (which is how much I paid) maybe even less. In a world of $8000 bikes and $400 shoes, $450 for the best training tool out there is not a lot.


I've also worn the HR strap along with the power meter long enough to see that
 
This has been argued before, but it's not the case. The issue is that power wins races, not HR. There was a study done which I don't have a reference to, perhaps someone else does, where inexperienced riders first paced by HR (or PE I don't remember) first, then paced by power second in a 10 mile TT.

In every case, the riders went out too hard to "raise their HR", popped and ended up hanging on for dear life till the end.

When pacing by power using some "arbitrary" figure (actually they paced by their threshold power which is hardly arbitrary) they ended up finishing the 10 mile TT significantly faster then when pacing by HR.

Finally, your initial thesis is wrong: The goal of training is to increase your power output irrespective of what systems are worked. Metabolic stress is much better measured by VO2 and it correlates much more closely with power than HR.[/QUOTE]

You/we were not talking about "pacing" in a TT but an "interval" in training and the power you do the interval at is "arbitary" if you can't match it to a heart reat/level of exertion to set an appropriate power range. Power meters are excellent for measuring your power output and that, as you (and I) rightly pointed out is what you are trying to increase.

Plenty of runners, swimmers, cross country skiers etc train very successfully without power meters. HRMs are used extensively for training across all disciplines. It's not a competition between HRM and power meters. They are both useful and do different and complimentary things. I'm sure other disciplines would use power metres too if someone could invent them.

Pat
 
pod said:
Plenty of runners, swimmers, cross country skiers etc train very successfully without power meters. HRMs are used extensively for training across all disciplines. It's not a competition between HRM and power meters. They are both useful and do different and complimentary things. I'm sure other disciplines would use power metres too if someone could invent them.
Pat

Actually, most runners and all swimmers, train by pace, not by HR. Because running on a track has no elevation change and runners typically run too slowly for wind to be a significant issue (most of the time anyway), pace is just as accurate as power for running. Same with the swimming pool (although stroke is very important in swimming).

Let me re-iterate my stance - having used a power meter for three years, two of which I also used the HR strap and researched the topic for a long time, I've come to the conclusion that HR is not a useful training tool. If I broke my powermeter and couldn't afford a new one, I wouldn't go back to training by HR, I'd used PE instead.

I also think that training by HR leads to bad training habits (e.g. hold a constant HR) and a false sense of what it is you're training. For this reason, I'm loath to recommend HR training to beginners because it seems that people who started out training by HR can't let go of those false principles.
 
beerco said:
Actually, most runners and all swimmers, train by pace, not by HR. Because running on a track has no elevation change and runners typically run too slowly for wind to be a significant issue (most of the time anyway), pace is just as accurate as power for running. Same with the swimming pool (although stroke is very important in swimming).

Every runner I know monitors both HR and pace. I know several sub 3 hour marathoners and one sub 2:30, one sub 29 min 10km. I know a few national level XC skiers too, and they all monitor HR and find it useful.

I also think that training by HR leads to bad training habits (e.g. hold a constant HR) and a false sense of what it is you're training. For this reason, I'm loath to recommend HR training to beginners because it seems that people who started out training by HR can't let go of those false principles.

This is a coaching issue not an inherent issue with HR. HR data has intelligent and less intelligent uses. If you can't find an intelligent use within the context of your training and your psychology, it sound like a good idea that you aren't using it and will continue not to do so.
 
Roadie_scum said:
If you can't find an intelligent use within the context of your training and your psychology, it sound like a good idea that you aren't using it and will continue not to do so.

So edify me, what is an intelligent use of HR for training? Be specific, use examples.
 
beerco said:
So edify me, what is an intelligent use of HR for training? Be specific, use examples.

I'm not sure I'm the most qualified person to edify you - perhaps you should track down a national level or well qualified club level running, XC skiing, cycling or triathlon coach who uses HR.

For mine: I already gave the example of monitoring for illness. Add to that recovery/lack thereof. The studies I have already quoted suggest it has a role in TT training (though obviously careful coaching and an understanding of HR's limitations are necessary). What exactly do you want to know? I am not a slave to my HR monitor, but I do evaluate the data and find that relatively harder sessions have a tendency to correlate with higher values of HR. I also know if my HR is in the 190's I won't be able to sustain my effort for particularly long. I know that Peter Milostic, one of Australia's most successful TT'ers paces off HR. Maybe ventilatory thresholds correlate better with HR in well trained or elite individuals?
 
beerco said:
Well, I've come to the conclusion that VO2 is pretty meaningless WRT training. How can you use it?

You can't. I already said that. (Although if someone came up with a way to monitor it, I can think of lots of approaches to training utilising it).
 
Roadie_scum said:
For mine: I already gave the example of monitoring for illness.

If true and reliable, this would be the first actual use of HR I've heard of. Have you ever acted on this piece of information (e.g. bagged a workout) and if so, do you think the ultimate outcome was that you were better off than if you would have worked through that session?


Roadie_scum said:
Add to that recovery/lack thereof. The studies I have already quoted suggest it has a role in TT training (though obviously careful coaching and an understanding of HR's limitations are necessary).

[snippage]

Maybe ventilatory thresholds correlate better with HR in well trained or elite individuals?

I don't buy that you can tell how recovered you are by HR. HR is definitely depressed on the second day of a block of training. does this mean than you shouldn't do your second hard day? Most would aggree that no it doesn't.

Coggan's example of the TT 20bpm lower is an example that VT & HR don't correclate consistently.

What do I want :confused: ; I guess I want people to keep training by HR so that it's easier to beat them come race day! :D I suppose I should keep my mouth shut!
 
beerco said:
If true and reliable, this would be the first actual use of HR I've heard of. Have you ever acted on this piece of information (e.g. bagged a workout) and if so, do you think the ultimate outcome was that you were better off than if you would have worked through that session?

Yes. Yes.

I don't buy that you can tell how recovered you are by HR. HR is definitely depressed on the second day of a block of training. does this mean than you shouldn't do your second hard day? Most would aggree that no it doesn't.

I would agree that it doesn't mean you should bag the session - that owould be extreme. However, that doesn't mean that it isn't a partial measure of recovery - it's just that it's reasonable to accumulate fatigue and train while partially unrecovered. Doesn't mean it isn't useful to be aware that you are responding differently to the training.

Coggan's example of the TT 20bpm lower is an example that VT & HR don't correclate consistently.

I quote studies, you quote an anecdote. I'm sure Coggan wouldn't be impressed. I think the studies I quoted can be criticised, and I still think HR data needs to be interpreted carefully - sometimes taken with a grain of salt. It is ridiculous, though, to contend it's worthless just because there is something better out there.

Cheers, by the way, for the heads up on the second hand powertaps. As an Australian, we don't have much in the way of that stuff, but I'm heading overseas next year and I'll keep an eye out.
 
Roadie_scum said:
I quote studies, you quote an anecdote. I'm sure Coggan wouldn't be impressed. I think the studies I quoted can be criticised, and I still think HR data needs to be interpreted carefully - sometimes taken with a grain of salt. It is ridiculous, though, to contend it's worthless just because there is something better out there.

Coggan originally posted his anecdote to illustrate that which is pretty known in the ex-phys world.

Check e-bay for used Powertaps. If you need some assistance shipping it out there I'll help. I still think that once you've tried a powermeter for a while you'll find that HR brings little to the table. At best, any value it brings is outweighed by the amount of study and conjecture it takes to gain some info you can use for training (which I'm still skeptical is there at all).
 
I tend to regard my HRM as a 'tachometer' as such so that I don't overstress my engine. On any given workout, many variables will change such as temperature road surface, wind :-(, fatigue etc etc but I strongly believe that a HRM gives the best indication of your bodies response to those variables at any given point in time. In my experience, my HRM tends to lag about 20 seconds behind my RPE
 
My HRM (and I've used them for 15+ years) is my motivator during rides on the trainer: Once I set the target zone, the HRM serves to remind me to work harder to get to the target zone, maintain effor to stay in the target zone, and late in the session, slow down to keep from going out of the zone on the high side.

Without the HRM, I know I don't work as hard, or maintain the same level of effort.
 
@edd

guess I am going to build a game into it: the higher your heartrate the more your coach undresses..:cool:

could become the best selling product in years..
 

Similar threads