Base training - heart rate vs power
Moderator: Moderator Team
Hello guys,
I bought a powermeter in august this year and made the decision to do a traditional base training plan this winter (12 weeks riding in mostly Z2).
I took some time of the bike in november and now I'm starting the base phase. I did some tests and noticed a drop in FTP of about 20 watts, and adjusted my training zones accordingly.
Now I've spent 2 weeks riding mostly in zone 2 (power zone) and notice that my heart rate is a lot higher than I should (should I?) expect, it's almost always in the upper end of my endurance heart rate zone (zone 2) and crossing over into zone 3 (tempo) a lot!
Am I riding too hard or is my body still adapting from the recovery time I took in november?
Aerobic decoupling is all over the place, yesterday it was 1% (outdoor ride) and on indoor rides it's usually around 4-5% (heart rate is a lot higher during indoor rides, almost always in tempo zone). EF is a number I'm not quite used working with so I'm having difficulty interpreting this number. I see small increases, but there is a difference in indoor-en outdoor numbers. Indoor is usually around 1,4 and going up, outdoor is around 1,3 and going up.
Does anyone have any tips onbringing this base trainig phase to a good end? Should I focus more on heartrate instead of on power numbers? or keep training with power in mind?
thanks!
I bought a powermeter in august this year and made the decision to do a traditional base training plan this winter (12 weeks riding in mostly Z2).
I took some time of the bike in november and now I'm starting the base phase. I did some tests and noticed a drop in FTP of about 20 watts, and adjusted my training zones accordingly.
Now I've spent 2 weeks riding mostly in zone 2 (power zone) and notice that my heart rate is a lot higher than I should (should I?) expect, it's almost always in the upper end of my endurance heart rate zone (zone 2) and crossing over into zone 3 (tempo) a lot!
Am I riding too hard or is my body still adapting from the recovery time I took in november?
Aerobic decoupling is all over the place, yesterday it was 1% (outdoor ride) and on indoor rides it's usually around 4-5% (heart rate is a lot higher during indoor rides, almost always in tempo zone). EF is a number I'm not quite used working with so I'm having difficulty interpreting this number. I see small increases, but there is a difference in indoor-en outdoor numbers. Indoor is usually around 1,4 and going up, outdoor is around 1,3 and going up.
Does anyone have any tips onbringing this base trainig phase to a good end? Should I focus more on heartrate instead of on power numbers? or keep training with power in mind?
thanks!
But I could be wrong
- jekyll man
- Posts: 1570
- Joined: Wed Apr 25, 2007 10:23 am
- Location: Pack filler
Ignore heart rate.
Its such a slow response to too many external factors.
Just rely on your power- its what you can do at that particular time, and often despite feeling tired and maybe a suppressed HR, you can still hit the required power.
I **think** that aerobic decoupling has been debunked nowadays.
Its such a slow response to too many external factors.
Just rely on your power- its what you can do at that particular time, and often despite feeling tired and maybe a suppressed HR, you can still hit the required power.
I **think** that aerobic decoupling has been debunked nowadays.
Official cafe stop tester
Visit starbike.com Online Retailer for HighEnd cycling components
Great Prices ✓ Broad Selection ✓ Worldwide Delivery ✓
www.starbike.com
I would stick with HR during base training as explained here http://home.trainingpeaks.com/blog/arti ... heart-rate
I would have some advice about how HR works with power output, but haven't worn a HR belt for several years. If you have nothing else, then HR and RPE can work, when when you have power, why bother?
"Physiology is all just propaganda and lies... all waiting to be disproven by the next study."
"I'm not a real doctor; But I am a real worm; I am an actual worm." - TMBG
"I'm not a real doctor; But I am a real worm; I am an actual worm." - TMBG
I trained with HR in the 90s. It was like reading entrails and pushed me to get an SRM...in 1998. I haven't worn a HR strap since then.
No base training either.
I believe decoupling is something that Friel came up with. It's a good idea to immediately reject anything Friel or Carmichael suggest or conjure up.
No base training either.
I believe decoupling is something that Friel came up with. It's a good idea to immediately reject anything Friel or Carmichael suggest or conjure up.
I was trying really hard not to jump on this hand grenade.
HR is the gold standard. Power is a performance measure, never forget that. The longer the effort the more useful HR is, the shorter the effort the more useful power is. To ignore HR is idiotic. If you are busting a nut to make your power number for zone 2 but your Hr is in the gutter or way above Z2 there is something wrong, tired, improperly fueled, sick.
HR is the gold standard. Power is a performance measure, never forget that. The longer the effort the more useful HR is, the shorter the effort the more useful power is. To ignore HR is idiotic. If you are busting a nut to make your power number for zone 2 but your Hr is in the gutter or way above Z2 there is something wrong, tired, improperly fueled, sick.
Agree with @jimv a couple posts above. Power is an absolute but it says nothing about how hard the engine is working to achieve that power. That's where heart rate comes in. It may be a little engine working very hard or a big engine that could go all day at a given power. The two are complementary data points that should be looked at together.
Colnago C64 - The Naked Build; Colnago C60 - PR99; Trek Koppenberg - Where Emonda and Domane Meet;
Unlinked Builds (searchable): Colnago C59 - 5 Years Later; Trek Emonda SL Campagnolo SR; Special Colnago EPQ
Unlinked Builds (searchable): Colnago C59 - 5 Years Later; Trek Emonda SL Campagnolo SR; Special Colnago EPQ
No, for those that work with and understand what HR is, what it represents and what effects it makes it a very poor measure of effort. RPE is far more accurate indicator of effort in lieu of power. Combined with power it's very accurate.
HR tells you how many beats per minute. When you know how many things can factor into this the less relevant it is. Also the lag in HR can make it even more misleading.
Hell, some people even train with neither.
HR tells you how many beats per minute. When you know how many things can factor into this the less relevant it is. Also the lag in HR can make it even more misleading.
Hell, some people even train with neither.
"Physiology is all just propaganda and lies... all waiting to be disproven by the next study."
"I'm not a real doctor; But I am a real worm; I am an actual worm." - TMBG
"I'm not a real doctor; But I am a real worm; I am an actual worm." - TMBG
-
- in the industry
- Posts: 5777
- Joined: Sat May 12, 2012 7:25 pm
- Location: Glermsford, Suffolk U.K
- Contact:
today my heart rate was elevated for the modest power output I was putting out. This told me I was fatigued which I knew anyway. Using your HR monitor you can keep your heart down if you see you are fatigued. I use both but I am not a slave to either.
Both readings are really necessary. Heart rate is an initial indicator of physical exertion but not an indicator of actual physical strength output. Wattage is a measure of actual physical strength output but doesn't necessarily reflect the exertion that was put into creating that output. Basically, one is effort in, one is effort out.
For base training, working with HR alone can let you train with measurements such as recovery rate and and exertion level in mind. With wattage alone you are detached from measures of physical exertion, recovery, over- or under-training. If I only had one for base training, it would be HR, but with the proviso that not tracking power during base training could mean my actual power could slide without my paying attention to it.
Nothing's perfect and one can punch holes in HRMs, power meters, and practically any other approach to training. Both HR and watts have big holes in how they can be used, and the bottom line is that we train to win and winning is the ultimate measure of fitness. It's how we get there that's difficult, and for that both measurement systems are really valuable. Together they are still not enough. It takes coaching, good self-evaluation, and important intangibles such as emotional willpower to make a winner. So we're really just talking about only two pieces of the complete pie. In that sense this debate is somewhat meaningless because it's all about how one gets there and how far you're really willing to reach to get to your best performance.
For base training, working with HR alone can let you train with measurements such as recovery rate and and exertion level in mind. With wattage alone you are detached from measures of physical exertion, recovery, over- or under-training. If I only had one for base training, it would be HR, but with the proviso that not tracking power during base training could mean my actual power could slide without my paying attention to it.
Nothing's perfect and one can punch holes in HRMs, power meters, and practically any other approach to training. Both HR and watts have big holes in how they can be used, and the bottom line is that we train to win and winning is the ultimate measure of fitness. It's how we get there that's difficult, and for that both measurement systems are really valuable. Together they are still not enough. It takes coaching, good self-evaluation, and important intangibles such as emotional willpower to make a winner. So we're really just talking about only two pieces of the complete pie. In that sense this debate is somewhat meaningless because it's all about how one gets there and how far you're really willing to reach to get to your best performance.
^This! Completely agree. If I only had the choice of one measurement, I too would take HR, perhaps because I was so in tune with that long before power meters were even readily available. But power completely takes the guess work out of perceived exertion, so the two go hand in hand if you were training for maximum performance, along with all the other factors mentioned above as well.
Colnago C64 - The Naked Build; Colnago C60 - PR99; Trek Koppenberg - Where Emonda and Domane Meet;
Unlinked Builds (searchable): Colnago C59 - 5 Years Later; Trek Emonda SL Campagnolo SR; Special Colnago EPQ
Unlinked Builds (searchable): Colnago C59 - 5 Years Later; Trek Emonda SL Campagnolo SR; Special Colnago EPQ
thank you for your insights guys, lots of interesting views and opinions.
I do believe that both HR and power are related in some way and both numbers can give some perspective into training. I'm still figuring this out, and how to put them together.
I have noticed that HR is influenced a lot by circumstances. In my case I believe a lack of sleep and some work related stress influenced my HR in the ride from my first post.
I had a couple of days off and got to sleep in today and went for a ride where my power numbers where quite a bit higher and my HR was at the levels I expected them to be, so everything seems "normal" again which is quite a relief.
I do believe that both HR and power are related in some way and both numbers can give some perspective into training. I'm still figuring this out, and how to put them together.
I have noticed that HR is influenced a lot by circumstances. In my case I believe a lack of sleep and some work related stress influenced my HR in the ride from my first post.
I had a couple of days off and got to sleep in today and went for a ride where my power numbers where quite a bit higher and my HR was at the levels I expected them to be, so everything seems "normal" again which is quite a relief.
But I could be wrong
benzebub wrote:thank you for your insights guys, lots of interesting views and opinions.
I do believe that both HR and power are related in some way and both numbers can give some perspective into training. I'm still figuring this out, and how to put them together.
I have noticed that HR is influenced a lot by circumstances. In my case I believe a lack of sleep and some work related stress influenced my HR in the ride from my first post.
I had a couple of days off and got to sleep in today and went for a ride where my power numbers where quite a bit higher and my HR was at the levels I expected them to be, so everything seems "normal" again which is quite a relief.
In your case your HR was telling you something. Zone2 in power is more discreet or narrow relative to HR. My lab tested zone2 HR is 20+ beats wide, and my zone2 power is 50w wide. What I am trying to say is that zone 2 for HR can be a fairly big range, but if you are way low or high on HR and you can't make the power, that is the confirmation.
The bike part is easy, everyone loves to go hard. It is the rest part that gets you fit and fast.
Visit starbike.com Online Retailer for HighEnd cycling components
Great Prices ✓ Broad Selection ✓ Worldwide Delivery ✓
www.starbike.com