A Rant on Power-Based Training

[mattr]

That's about what i'm down to now, i actually threw some beer away a couple of weeks ago as it'd gone off.

Easier to not put my foot in it with the ex if i wasn't drinking!

[DOUG]

But I feel as though the entire premise of the argument for choosing HR based training over power based in the OP is a strawman. i.e. people who train with power dont also train with HR. Its simply not true. The vast majority of people who train with PM's would use HR as a metric as well, especially for racing.

I wish this were the case.

https://forum.trainerroad.com/t/do-i-ne ... tor/2585/6

https://powermetercity.com/2016/02/16/h ... wer-meter/

Just a couple of links I found after 30 seconds of Googling.

HRMs are described as something that is less important than power meters when it comes to training, and power meters are described as better.

This is a fantastic article:

https://www.bikeradar.com/advice/fitnes ... eart-rate/

"power meters are a “valuable addition to an amateur cyclists’ toolkit”, but are by no means essential."

"There’s a popular belief that heart rate training is ‘old school’ and power training is ‘new school’."

“Let’s say your coach tells you to train at 250W in zone two for four hours. They’re assuming your metabolic response is going to be the same throughout that four-hour period, but that’s not true in many cases.”

"A Spaniard teaching in the US, San Millan’s experience of seeing burnt-out cyclists has come mainly in his adopted country. “In Europe we have more of a tradition of physiology and a scientific approach to cycling. In the US there isn’t that sophistication. A lot of cyclists buried their heart rate monitor a decade ago.”

"Even at WorldTour level, Cannondale-Garmin boss Jonathan Vaughters supports riders who choose not to use power as part of their training. “[Power] is a great tool, if used correctly,” he says. “But if over-used and over-simplified, power measurement probably hurts training.”

Yeah I dunno, some random guy on a forum and an article on a website that sells power meters arent exactly bolstering your argument here. Im just saying I havent met anyone or even spoken to anyone who trains exclusively with a PM and doesnt even track their HR. Im not saying they dont exist, but they must be a very small niche of the overall community of cycloists who train with a PM.

For me, I use both all the time on every ride. I set my workouts using power zones but they very closely match my HR zones anyway. If my HR is way off for any given interval its usually a good sign something is wrong. On the MTB I dont have a PM so train exclusively to my HR zones for roughly 30% of my rides anyway, I feel like i would have a really good idea of what power or RPE i should be putting out for a given HR.

One thing I have been doing recently though is ensuring my Power AND HR stays much more within the Z2 range on my long endurance rides instead of creeping up into tempo. I finish a lot less fatigued and have more energy and less muscle sorness when it comes to the HIIT later in the week. Listening to the Velonew podcasts and reading your other threads its obvious that the adaptations are pretty much the same just with less sress on the body, my real world experience backs this up.

[DOUG]

But I feel as though the entire premise of the argument for choosing HR based training over power based in the OP is a strawman. i.e. people who train with power dont also train with HR. Its simply not true. The vast majority of people who train with PM's would use HR as a metric as well, especially for racing.

I wish this were the case.

https://forum.trainerroad.com/t/do-i-ne ... tor/2585/6

https://powermetercity.com/2016/02/16/h ... wer-meter/

Just a couple of links I found after 30 seconds of Googling.

HRMs are described as something that is less important than power meters when it comes to training, and power meters are described as better.

This is a fantastic article:

https://www.bikeradar.com/advice/fitnes ... eart-rate/

"power meters are a “valuable addition to an amateur cyclists’ toolkit”, but are by no means essential."

"There’s a popular belief that heart rate training is ‘old school’ and power training is ‘new school’."

“Let’s say your coach tells you to train at 250W in zone two for four hours. They’re assuming your metabolic response is going to be the same throughout that four-hour period, but that’s not true in many cases.”

"A Spaniard teaching in the US, San Millan’s experience of seeing burnt-out cyclists has come mainly in his adopted country. “In Europe we have more of a tradition of physiology and a scientific approach to cycling. In the US there isn’t that sophistication. A lot of cyclists buried their heart rate monitor a decade ago.”

"Even at WorldTour level, Cannondale-Garmin boss Jonathan Vaughters supports riders who choose not to use power as part of their training. “[Power] is a great tool, if used correctly,” he says. “But if over-used and over-simplified, power measurement probably hurts training.”

Yeah I dunno, some random guy on a forum and an article on a website that sells power meters arent exactly bolstering your argument here. Im just saying I havent met anyone or even spoken to anyone who trains exclusively with a PM and doesnt even track their HR. Im not saying they dont exist, but they must be a very small niche of the overall community of cyclists who train with a PM.

For me, on the road bike and smart trainer I use both all the time on every ride. I set my workouts using power zones but they very closely match my HR zones anyway. If my HR is way off for any given interval its usually a good sign something is wrong. On the MTB I dont have a PM so train exclusively to my HR zones and corresponding RPE for roughly 30% of my rides anyway, I feel like i would have a really good idea of what power or RPE i should be putting out for a given HR.

One thing I have been doing recently though is ensuring my Power AND HR stays much more within the Z2 range on my long endurance rides instead of creeping up into tempo. I finish a lot less fatigued and have more energy and less muscle sorness when it comes to the HIIT later in the week. Listening to the Velonew podcasts and reading your other threads its obvious that the adaptations are pretty much the same just with less sress on the body, my real world experience backs this up.

[AeroObsessive]

Let's take a hypothetical rider who can maintain a power of 200watts for 1 hour fairly comfortably. This rider wants to improve. This rider will probably do some combination of the following:

1) Continue to do sessions of riding 200watts for 1 hour, hoping for adaptations to occur so it becomes easier to ride 200watts for 1 hour
2) Extend the 200watt riding sessions by say 5 minutes each ride, hoping for adaptations to occur
3) Attempt rides at 205 watts for an hour, hoping for adaptations to occur
4) Do some intervals at 200watts or higher, hoping for adaptations to occur

Lack of knowledge of basic training principles and training with a metric such as power are two different things.

-For what period of time do you have to do these 200watt hours for an hour to improve? When should this rider either increase the power, or when should they extend the duration of the 200watt rides?
-Once this rider can do 210 watts comfortably for an hour, when should this rider seek to increase to 220 watts? Or 230 watts?
-Is it OK to do 200watt rides for 1 hour every day? Or should there be some rest days built in? With harder days built in?
-How easy should the rest days be? 150watts? How hard should the hard days be? 250 watts?
-Should there be any extended period of recovery and rebuilding?
-When should intervals occur and in what form? Some % of FTP? Says who and why is this so? How many reps? How much rest between reps? Why? What is the basis for x rest between reps?
-What about "sweet spot" rides or threshold rides? Do I follow the %FTP? How long should I do these efforts and how often?

All the questions you have posed form the core crux of all training, whether it be cycling, running, weight training etc.

In the case of power-meter training, unfortunately the only ones with the "answers" are "coaches" who want your money, your friends who don't really know, or some random guy on the internet.

Total bullshit, but don't allow your own ignorance to cloud other peoples ability to seek and learn new information.

Let me tell you the answer: experience. Not science. Not research. Nope. Just, experience. Experience which may or may not translate from whatever athletes they have coached, to you and me.

Again, bullshit. Plus side to the wonderful world of the internet, and this ancient things known as books, we have the ability to learn about the core prinicples of training and how to utilise the tool available to us to find out these answers.

Oh sure, a coach will probably put some kind of structure in your training, and probably make you go harder and longer, and you WILL inevitably improve just because you have increased your workload. But is this rate of gain sustainable? Is it the most efficient and effective bang for your time spent? Will it result in you being overfatigued, sore and tired all the time? Nobody knows, not even the coaches.

If the coach has no way of monitoring fatigue, then they are not much of a coach.

The beauty of heart-rate based training is it is entirely based on science and research conducted by the most significant research institutions in the world. We are talking about Harvard, Stanford, Johns Hopkins. Doctors specializing in blood, bone marrow function, hormones, etc. PhDs who research human growth, the role of mitochondria, the heart and lungs, oxygen delivery functions. They have millions of dollars of funding by the government and major pharma companies who are interested in improving human health, not some small-time cycling team like Sky or US Postal who want to win some race that is not even that profitable. These are not some random coach with a few athletes and access to a local lab at the local technical college and some guys in labcoats with a masters degree in sports science who will prick your ear to measure your lactate or Vo2max and pretend that this is some kind of science-based training.

Yawn. Strawman much?

The rest of your post is also containing similar falacies.

Yes, those that do research are usually very helpful. I suggest you take the time to more fully investigate the premise of what you are talking about here. Quite simply, it does not stack up. Heart-rate based training is based in science, and power based training is just for cycling coaches and the odd small time lab? Please, what a TITANTIC load of horse-shit. LIke, really epic scale.

[scapie]

@AeroObsessive...what happened to your old OG account?

[AeroObsessive]

@AeroObsessive...what happened to your old OG account?

Forgotten passwords and defunct emails etc - a fresh start as it were

[scapie]

@AeroObsessive...what happened to your old OG account?

Forgotten passwords and defunct emails etc - a fresh start as it were

damn bruh, you got that fresh grip on the doube barrel? bang bang. ha ha!

[iheartbianchi]

Lack of knowledge of basic training principles and training with a metric such as power are two different things.

This right here is what you really meant by a strawman, and is completely non-responsive to the assertion you are attempting to rebut.

All the questions you have posed form the core crux of all training, whether it be cycling, running, weight training etc.

Is there a point here? I was posing some hypothetical questions as a background before moving onto an argument.

Total bullshit, but don't allow your own ignorance to cloud other peoples ability to seek and learn new information.

Is there a point here?

If the coach has no way of monitoring fatigue, then they are not much of a coach.

At least something we agree on.

Yawn. Strawman much?

Yawn. Is there a point here?

The rest of your post is also containing similar falacies.

Yes, those that do research are usually very helpful. I suggest you take the time to more fully investigate the premise of what you are talking about here. Quite simply, it does not stack up. Heart-rate based training is based in science, and power based training is just for cycling coaches and the odd small time lab? Please, what a TITANTIC load of horse-shit. LIke, really epic scale.

The rest of your post actually contains nothing of value, nothing of substance, actually nothing of any note at all other than some hostility, that I wonder why you even bothered posting. Maybe to pound your chest as to how I'm right and you're wrong, but then you failed to even attempt to show why? You have also demonstrated a shocking inability to read, as I have never made the assertions you are claiming I made. I won't get into the psychology of this, other than to say that you should read a bit more thoughtfully without letting your emotions cloud your ability to reasonably interpret other people's words.

By the way, anyone who spent more than 5 minutes studying FTP would know that the very limited research on FTP thus far has shown mixed and often contradictory results.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29809063

"The 4-min and 20-min TTs appear useful for assessing performance in trained, if not elite, cyclists"

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29801189

"In conclusion, FTP20 and FTP60 should not be used interchangeably on an individual basis and their validity against IAT should be interpreted with caution."

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29745765

"However, caution should be taken when using FTP interchangeably with LT, as the bias between markers seems to depend on the athlete's fitness status. Whereas FTP provides a good estimate of LT in trained cyclists, in recreational cyclists, it may underestimate LT."

That's funny. Nobody mentions this when they treat FTP has some better and more accurate alternative to HR-based training. And if you're tempted to make another "strawman" post, do read the posts above for someone who makes exactly this point.

[iheartbianchi]

Lack of knowledge of basic training principles and training with a metric such as power are two different things.

This right here is what you really meant by a strawman, and is completely non-responsive to the assertion you are attempting to rebut.

All the questions you have posed form the core crux of all training, whether it be cycling, running, weight training etc.

Is there a point here? I was posing some hypothetical questions as a background before moving onto an argument.

Total bullshit, but don't allow your own ignorance to cloud other peoples ability to seek and learn new information.

Is there a point here?

If the coach has no way of monitoring fatigue, then they are not much of a coach.

At least something we agree on.

Yawn. Strawman much?

Yawn. Is there a point here?

The rest of your post is also containing similar falacies.

Yes, those that do research are usually very helpful. I suggest you take the time to more fully investigate the premise of what you are talking about here. Quite simply, it does not stack up. Heart-rate based training is based in science, and power based training is just for cycling coaches and the odd small time lab? Please, what a TITANTIC load of horse-shit. LIke, really epic scale.

The rest of your post actually contains nothing of value, nothing of substance, actually nothing of any note at all other than some hostility, that I wonder why you even bothered posting. Maybe to pound your chest and declare "I'm right and you're wrong," but then you failed to even attempt to show why? You have also demonstrated a shocking inability to read, as I have never made the assertions you are claiming I made. I won't get into the psychology of this, other than to say that you should read a bit more thoughtfully without letting your emotions cloud your ability to reasonably interpret other people's words.

By the way, anyone who spent more than 5 minutes studying FTP would know that the very limited research on FTP thus far has shown mixed and often contradictory results.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29809063

"The 4-min and 20-min TTs appear useful for assessing performance in trained, if not elite, cyclists"

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29801189

"In conclusion, FTP20 and FTP60 should not be used interchangeably on an individual basis and their validity against IAT should be interpreted with caution."

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29745765

"However, caution should be taken when using FTP interchangeably with LT, as the bias between markers seems to depend on the athlete's fitness status. Whereas FTP provides a good estimate of LT in trained cyclists, in recreational cyclists, it may underestimate LT."

That's funny. Nobody mentions this when they treat FTP has some better and more accurate alternative to HR-based training. And if you're tempted to make another "strawman" post, do read the posts above for someone who makes exactly this point.

[AeroObsessive]

Lack of knowledge of basic training principles and training with a metric such as power are two different things.

This right here is what you really meant by a strawman, and is completely non-responsive to the assertion you are attempting to rebut.

I was responding the below. It is a limited and ridiculus premises which you use to justisy your viewpoint and bias. Power is not the issue here, a lack of understanding of training methodology. Hence, strawman.

Let's take a hypothetical rider who can maintain a power of 200watts for 1 hour fairly comfortably. This rider wants to improve. This rider will probably do some combination of the following:

1) Continue to do sessions of riding 200watts for 1 hour, hoping for adaptations to occur so it becomes easier to ride 200watts for 1 hour
2) Extend the 200watt riding sessions by say 5 minutes each ride, hoping for adaptations to occur
3) Attempt rides at 205 watts for an hour, hoping for adaptations to occur
4) Do some intervals at 200watts or higher, hoping for adaptations to occur

Is there a point here?

Yes.

By the way, anyone who spent more than 5 minutes studying FTP would know that the very limited research on FTP thus far has shown mixed and often contradictory results.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29809063

"The 4-min and 20-min TTs appear useful for assessing performance in trained, if not elite, cyclists"

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29801189

"In conclusion, FTP20 and FTP60 should not be used interchangeably on an individual basis and their validity against IAT should be interpreted with caution."

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29745765

"However, caution should be taken when using FTP interchangeably with LT, as the bias between markers seems to depend on the athlete's fitness status. Whereas FTP provides a good estimate of LT in trained cyclists, in recreational cyclists, it may underestimate LT."

That's funny. Nobody mentions this when they treat FTP has some better and more accurate alternative to HR-based training. And if you're tempted to make another "strawman" post, do read the posts above for someone who makes exactly this point.

I will throw your words back at you. The rest of your post actually contains nothing of value, nothing of substance, actually nothing of any note at all other than some hostility, that I wonder why you even bothered posting. Maybe to pound your chest and declare "I'm right and you're wrong," but then you failed to even attempt to show why?

You have also demonstrated a shocking inability to read.

Especially when I haven't said a thing about FTP. Again, making assertions about things of which you don't seem to hold any real understanding of.

[iheartbianchi]

I thought I’d give you a chance to make a substantive point but it seems I was a bit naive. I will no longer be engaging with you but please feel free to carry on.

[GaBa]

@iheartbianchi I really hope you won’t stop writing due to some who cannot run a discussion with argumentation since I (and many others as well) find your posts very insightful and are a welcome contribution to the forum.

I train with PM and have training sessions based on power but also always use HR and check it.power zone 2 seems to match HR zone 2 based on LTHR but not if I’d base zones on max HR. But I always seemed to have higher HR than most others, I can also hit 185 during training with no problem (age 32) while a couple years younger friend of mine can’t go past 175. Wouldn’t you say that there is also some genetic or physiological difference among us? And therefore setting zones base on theoretical max HR would be wrong?

Nevertheless I find your content interesting and would love to continue reading it.

[iheartbianchi]

@iheartbianchi I really hope you won’t stop writing due to some who cannot run a discussion with argumentation since I (and many others as well) find your posts very insightful and are a welcome contribution to the forum.

I train with PM and have training sessions based on power but also always use HR and check it.power zone 2 seems to match HR zone 2 based on LTHR but not if I’d base zones on max HR. But I always seemed to have higher HR than most others, I can also hit 185 during training with no problem (age 32) while a couple years younger friend of mine can’t go past 175. Wouldn’t you say that there is also some genetic or physiological difference among us? And therefore setting zones base on theoretical max HR would be wrong?

Nevertheless I find your content interesting and would love to continue reading it.

There is some physiological difference in maximum heart rate between people of the same gender of the same age, but if there are significant differences I would be suspicious of something else such as an inaccurate measurement of max heart rate or an underlying health issue.

First, did you do a max HR test or did you simply do the calculation? The calculation is a very rough guide and you should do a test if possible. I would also avoiding cycling for your test, because unless you are very fit, your legs could be holding you back from reaching close to your peak HR. Also keep in mind that if you have a low lactate threshold, then lactate accumulation can shutdown your legs impeding your ability to reach higher HR levels. So generally, I would look towards running (which utilizes a greater range of muscles and thus greater exertion required) or some other form of full-body exercise. Boxing, sprints up stairs, boot camp style PT, etc., will all get your heart rate near its max. There are an abundant amount of resources on HR tests.

Second, did you measure your LTHR accurately? If you did, then there's something wrong with your max HR measurement. Also note that your lactate threshold moves as you get more fit, so it may be time for an updated test. Also, there is some debate as to the "exact" point of lactate threshold. It's generally understood to be some narrow band where you begin rapidly accumulating lactate so it's somewhat of a moving target. But the point of LTHR based training is basically basing your training off the principle of avoiding the accumulation of lactate at all costs, so as long as you are below, I wouldn't be too concerned about minor differences between LTHR and Max HR zones.

Finally regarding your friend, there could be a number of reasons why your friend can't get past 175. Barring some genetic anomaly, your friend could be extremely fit, your friend could be overtrained, or your friend's legs may be holding him back. On this latter point, less fit people tend to have lower lactate thresholds and weaker muscle fibers. The accumulation of lactate or tears in the muscle fibers will prevent your legs from working hard, which in turn means your heart doesn't need to pump as much blood to your legs.

p.s. A note on LTHR testing - I actually think this test is less accurate than Max HR. It is pretty simple to reliably find out what is near your maximum HR. If you don't believe me, go do some sprints up some stairs (say 5-8 floors with 30 second rest between sets) and tell me how you feel Whereas LTHR if done according to trainingpeaks would have you do 30 minutes by yourself. There is a lot of variability there. Motiviation, biomechanical efficiency, etc. The variability is apparent in the fact that there are different tests depending on the sport (running cycling or swimming).

p.p.s. Assuming that you are going to be using your Max HR derived from say running into cycling training zones, do you need to make an adjustment? Physiologically, there should be no difference as Max HR is in theory, a defined number, and so I would say no, this is not required. However, significant deviations between max HRs between cycling/running would mean that you are much more fit for one type of activity than another (efficiency, muscles). So at least on a temporary basis, you can consider downward adjusting your HR zones for cycling by maybe 5% per zone (assuming that your max HR for running is indeed higher, which it typically is). This also ties into what I said above - if you struggle to raise your HR while cycling, you are either really really fit, or your muscles just aren't fully trained and you don't have the efficiencies to really push your heart.

[mattr]

I think you need to quote sources for all of that.

[iheartbianchi]

I think you need to quote sources for all of that.

Like all things on the internet, you can of course independently verify things. If there is a particular area which you are having trouble understanding, I’d be happy to cite sources but do understand it takes time.