Study which show us that training with PM does not make you faster

[oldborn]

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.

No comment at all, and waiting snake oil PM salesman to say something

 

[Tapeworm]

Love that they quantified improvement by measuring power

 

[CoachFergie]

Was that it Frank

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.

Will await the data to see if the training loads were comparable between the two groups. Did the GHEART group start their 4min effort at the target heart rate in which case it is likely they would perform more work as heart rate lags behind the effort.

It is also likely within a 4 week period that the target heart rate would remain constant while the target power would increase assuming the goal of training is to improve threshold power or power at a % of any threshold. Hence the GPOWER group would end up doing less and less work relative to GHEART group.

So highly likely the two groups actually trained at very different intensities.

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.

Look Frank, another study using well trained athletes showing an improvement in performance in a period of less than 5 weeks. Guess it can be done unless you use GimmickCranks.

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.

Only if we see if the training load in both experimental groups was matched in some fashion otherwise it appears the GHEART group just worked harder during their intervals.

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.

How frequently? Coaches who prescribe training intensity by power get a daily progress report.

So again Frank, was that the big study that was going to blow training with a power meter out of the water? Stick to pedalling technique

 

[oldborn]

Uh, uh, you sound like http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QJL1Rj1P_J0

 

[oldborn]

Love that they quantified improvement by measuring power

Yes they did, no one said contrary. But that 2009. Zulu study still show us no improvement for PM guys
We can debate off course, i am just saying.

 

[FrankDay]

Was that it Frank

Looks like it since out of Capetown, where one Sportsscientist is. These "debates" will never be the same again.

Too bad they didn't have 4 groups, another doing those intervals based on PE.

 

[Race Radio]

I think it depends on what you are training for. Many GT riders use HR and not power as their #1 measurement. Sastre, VDV, Miller and all of Ferrari's customers. Some classics racers, like Museeuw, also mostly used HR.

 

[oldborn]

"Changes in heart rate recovery after high-intensity training in well-trained cyclists" Lamberts et al
"In conclusion, HRR (heart rate recovery) is a sensitive marker which tracks changes in training status in already well-trained cyclists and has the potential to have an important role in monitoring and prescribing training"

Well it seems quite interesting


Some feedback about Capetown study: "But for the average cyclist faced with the costs of a power meter vs. the costs of a heart rate monitor, the results of this study are pretty interesting. Until the next training fad comes along, it’s possible to use a heart rate monitor for hard-core training without feeling like you’re stuck in the 1800’s. And think how easy it will be to teletype your results to your training partners in the Old Country."

Training: Heart Rate vs Power, By Erik Moen, PT

"So what does this mean to you? Training tools (HR monitors and power meters) provide important performance and training feedback and should be used to help prescribe effective exercise programs. The use of a HR monitor will be the most effective means of planning exercise dosage if you cannot regularly test yourself for threshold values. You don’t need a power meter to make performance gains in endurance bicycling. My best suggestion for those wanting to progress their expertise in bicycling is to first measure cadence, then move to HR and then utilize power."

I can sign this article cos it takes all possibilities into acount.

So is there any study or evidence which show us that we gonna be faster for 2000 euro? If yes please show us, i am waiting in a line

 

[FrankDay]

It is also likely within a 4 week period that the target heart rate would remain constant while the target power would increase assuming the goal of training is to improve threshold power or power at a % of any threshold. Hence the GPOWER group would end up doing less and less work relative to GHEART group.

So highly likely the two groups actually trained at very different intensities.

Good point. It is highly unlikely that the two groups would have different results unless they had different work loads. But, it seems this is actually an argument for the superiority of the HRM approach. What it would have taken to get the power group up to the hrm group would have been weekly assessments of where they were and revision of the target power to keep the work of the two groups the same. I doubt many do these assessments on such a frequent basis yet these frequent assessments are unnecessary in the HRM group because the heart self adjusts to the increasing ability.

So, it would seem that using the PM tends to under prescribe workout intensity compared to HRM even when trying to keep them the "same".

Look Frank, another study using well trained athletes showing an improvement in performance in a period of less than 5 weeks. Guess it can be done unless you use GimmickCranks.

So? This study is simply looking at simple muscular response to training, no need to completely change pedaling mechanics as part of the evaluation.

Only if we see if the training load in both experimental groups was matched in some fashion otherwise it appears the GHEART group just worked harder during their intervals.

Wouldn't that argue that HRM is inherently superior to PM, since athletes tend to work harder for the "same" prescribed effort? The "lag" is a positive thing it would seem.

How frequently? Coaches who prescribe training intensity by power get a daily progress report.

Well, it would seem that the best you could do with a daily adjustment of the target power would bring the results up to be the equal of the HRM group. Lot of work to accomplish something that occurs automatically using another device, seems to me.

So again Frank, was that the big study that was going to blow training with a power meter out of the water? Stick to pedalling technique

Huh? At least there is a study looking at the question now. Despite the fact that you question some aspects of the study the fact remains that the study shows no benefit to using PM over HRM and even suggests that PM is less effective. Until a better study is done showing the effects you expect you will have to live with it. I know how it feels.

 

[FrankDay]

Looks like it since out of Capetown, where one Sportsscientist is. These "debates" will never be the same again.

Too bad they didn't have 4 groups, another doing those intervals based on PE.

Actually, I am not so sure this is it as I was told about a year ago that the study had been done but was yet to be published. This was published in 2009.

Oh, and Fergie. You forgot what should have been your biggest criticism of this study, the journal it was published in. Same Journal as Luttrell. That should be enough to completely discount all their work don't you think?

And, why when I have repeatedly asked over and over if there were any studies on this issue that all you advocates kept quiet? Surely you must have known about this. Maybe you "chose" to forget. Ignorance is bliss, I guess.

LOL. Thanks Oldborn.

 

[JayKosta]

It seems odd that the abstract did not mention the training technique or results from the GCONTROL group.
If GCONTROL did the same twice weekly 8X4min intervals based on their personal physical exertion (PE) standard, that would yield interesting information - especially if their power & HR were tracked (but not made available to them).

Hopefully the full article includes info about GCONTROL, and also items such as:
HR and PE for GPOWER
POWER and PE for GHEART

The abstract leaves too many questions unanswered to draw conclusions from it alone.

Jay Kosta
Endwell NY USA

 

[FrankDay]

It seems odd that the abstract did not mention the training technique or results from the GCONTROL group.
If GCONTROL did the same twice weekly 8X4min intervals based on their personal physical exertion (PE) standard, that would yield interesting information - especially if their power & HR were tracked (but not made available to them).

My expectation is the control group just did LSD riding during this period. The stated purpose of the study was to see if improvement seen from high intensity training was the same between the two groups. So, control would have to be low-intensity training. As I stated earlier, it is a shame they didn't add a third study group that looked at PE as the "intensity" feedback control.

Anyhow, the proof of what they did is in the study, not the abstract. An abstract is simply the author's summary of the study.
[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]

 

[JayKosta]

full pdf file here -
http://demo02.onlineinnovations.com/cyclingsa/assets/Articles/1SwartetalJSCR2009.pdf

Jay Kosta
Endwell NY USA

 

[FrankDay]

full pdf file here -
http://demo02.onlineinnovations.com/cyclingsa/assets/Articles/1SwartetalJSCR2009.pdf

Jay Kosta
Endwell NY USA

Thanks for that. I look forward to both Fergie's and Coggan's analysis.

 

[FrankDay]

full pdf file here -
http://demo02.onlineinnovations.com/cyclingsa/assets/Articles/1SwartetalJSCR2009.pdf

Jay Kosta
Endwell NY USA

Here is an interesting excerpt. It is hard to argue that the HRM group did more work during the interval overall from this. However, the HRM group did do more work at the very beginning of the interval (presumably in an attempt to get the HR up to the goal) and then dropped off. Perhaps that is a superior technique of doing intervals if one is looking at power. Happens "automatically" if one is looking at HR.

 

[FrankDay]

Here is another interesting table. It gives a sense of what might have reached statistical significance had the groups been larger or the study lasted a little longer. It is a shame that many of those doing those PowerCranks studies in which there was improvement seen but the improvement didn't reach the 5% "statistical significance" level didn't do a similar analysis.

 

[fujisst]

Considering the multitude of variables affecting HR from day-to-day, how could one reliably train with any sort of consistency?
In a lab setting, some of those can be controlled such that the variability of the conditions is low. However, consider Joe Blow athlete doesn't train in a lab - obviously. Will definitely skew results when training with HR exclusively...Nice try, but I'll take the definitively objective wattage figure obtained from a power meter

 

[FrankDay]

Considering the multitude of variables affecting HR from day-to-day, how could one reliably train with any sort of consistency?
In a lab setting, some of those can be controlled such that the variability of the conditions is low. However, consider Joe Blow athlete doesn't train in a lab - obviously. Will definitely skew results when training with HR exclusively...Nice try, but I'll take the definitively objective wattage figure obtained from a power meter

Of course, you are welcome to choose any form of training that you think is best for you. Just don't come here and try to convince others that your choice is obviously better because the only science on the subject suggests a different conclusion.

Perhaps someday someone will do the study to validate your current bias.

 

[kiwirider]

This posting from top Ironman triathlon pro Chris McCormack on his website that talks about his approach of steering away from power meters and heart rate meters is quite interesting:
http://www.chrismccormack.com/2011/03/20/keep-it-simple/#more-97

Even more interesting is if you find the link to the interview with Brett Sutton - another Aussie who has been a top tri coach for years - which discusses the same approach that Macca takes in more detail: http://tinyurl.com/23l6pgz
(you have to get through a fair bit of introductory chatter by the two guys who host the page before you get to the interview ...)

I realise that these articles are about triathlon rather than cycling - but the comments are equally applicable to any endurance sport.

 

[oldborn]

The problem lies when someone claim that PM tool approach is ultimate one.

Also let me quote Matt Allyn:
"Power meters, of course, still have their place in cycling. If you're working to improve your peak power, there's no easier way to gauge your progress. Power meters can also provide more immediate feedback and won't be thrown off in hot weather (high temps can raise your heart rate and potentially throw off a workout)"

"I have been reading the posts on HR and wattage, with a great deal of interest, and have held my reply (in order to improve my SpO2 !).
I believe this can be easily summed up by a comment you expressed earlier- there is a place in training for both. The key is to understand the purpose of the particular training set.

If the purpose is to create a specific level of metabolic stress, to improve basic endurance, and release hormones and create adaptation to build a stronger cardiovascular system, then a priority to heart rate seems to be the most practical monitor.

If the purpose is to build functional strength, and tolerance to specific loads by creating a specified stress on the muscular function, then either wattage or speed would seem to be the best monitor.

Technically speaking, the speed a rider attains on a given course under uniform conditions is just as accurate a gage of load, and much less expensive!"

My previous post about power.

Where do you seen

 

[oldborn]

@kiwirider

[/url][/IMG]

As you can see i am following trends as a trendsetter
I just cover computer screen with tape, and guess what: same average speed as before. As Macca i am trying to learn body to pace alone, i do not even look at stop watch.

 

[FrankDay]

Also some amazing stuff from another forum or so about wattage vs HR
http://www.fact-canada.com/discus/messages/10/772.html?1293478846 Jurg guy posts are great

Some quote: "I think that there is the thought that if you are producing the same power at a lower HR that is a good thing. NO. Actually that is a sign of fatigue. You should, instead, be ultimatly be producing more power at the same HR. Not the same power at a lower HR. Follow your Heart. Listen to Jurg."

I have a lot of respect for Jurg and Herb at FACT Canada (and, they actually endorse and sell my product) but I would take issue with the above statement.

A lower HR at the same power MAY be a sign of fatigue. It could also be a sign of improved efficiency, a good thing. As I stated in another thread, the interpretation has to be done in context.

 

[oldborn]

I have a lot of respect for Jurg and Herb at FACT Canada (and, they actually endorse and sell my product) but I would take issue with the above statement.

A lower HR at the same power MAY be a sign of fatigue. It could also be a sign of improved efficiency, a good thing. As I stated in another thread, the interpretation has to be done in context.

I think that quote comes from another guy not Jurg.
BTW who is that guy, coach, some PhD or German.... I found very interesting objective stuff from him.

 

[CoachFergie]

Of course, you are welcome to choose any form of training that you think is best for you. Just don't come here and try to convince others that your choice is obviously better because the only science on the subject suggests a different conclusion.

Perhaps someday someone will do the study to validate your current bias.

This hasn't stopped you from making outrageous claims for a Gimmickcrank even though the science suggests a different conclusion.

What the study shows and is mentioned in the discussion is that heart rate is a more stable figure to base training zones from. Because if the training is effective the wattage training zones to cause an adequate training stimulus are always increasing.

They conclude that this is a bonus for heart rate training as power needs to be tested far more frequently to ensure accurate training zones. This is mistake because determining heart rate zones is very hit and miss. Is the heart rate at 80% of max (aerobic) power a reliable number? I watch people perform Conconi and Lactate Threshold tests and they are guessing where the turnpoints are.

These heart rate zones are also determined in the lab which creates issues when one trains on the roads, off roads or the velodrome.

Counter to the conclusions of the study training with power means less testing in the lab while training by heart rate means having to perform more tests in the lab using lactate, ventilation or VO2 which is costly and lacks external validity to get a number which may not be very reliable.

 

[oldborn]

This hasn't stopped you from making outrageous claims for a Gimmickcrank even though the science suggests a different conclusion.

Neither you have been objective Fergie, neither you

These heart rate zones are also determined in the lab which creates issues when one trains on the roads, off roads or the velodrome.

Yes, this is a second major critic of that study, average Dude has no lab.