I was religious about HRM based training from 1991 to 1996. Those were my best season (and yes, I was younger, but i felt I more often than not performed to potential). In early 1997 I developed this crazy rash where the HRM strap goes on and had to stop using it, but I tried to go back to it, with various straps for ~ 5 years and kept getting this stupid rash and gave up around 2001. 2009 started training and racing with power, but honestly my results did not change any different from racing without a power meter. Racing with a powermeter however made my racing more predictable, compared to nothing at all, but no different than capping effort based on HRM+Perceived exertion. I feel there are times when you just need to know how to use any tool coupled with perceived exertion. When early in a race or dehydrated, HRM was worth igorning and just going off perceived exertion. Likewise my power meter when I had my old SRM and it would be zero'd at 12C at 5:45 am and then out on the race course at noon it is 30C....my perceived exertion would tell me that my powermeter was drifting.

I recently acquired a Fenix3 that came with an HRM and have considered tryinig it out again. But given that over half my training is swimming, I don't need one for that (I go with the swim powermeter = pace clock). So until I get back to serious bike and running, I probably will leave the HRM on the shelf. But I am curious about how much different my heart rates are at 51 vs at 28. I did my marathon PB running the entire race between 170-185 bpm when my max was 193. Did my Olympic tri PB in that range too (swim a touch lower than 170, but not much)

Wow. So close to your max?

Yeah, it was funny because I went through all these tests back then to find my zones and I think it boils down to having a smaller heart that can beat fast to pump the blood around....or at least it was back then. But I remember a few other athletes who could do 2 hour of racing not far off their max. Or maybe our max heart rates were poorly measured, but I don't think so. I never saw a number above 193 in my life during all those year, but who knows. It may have been 196 or 198, but we never saw that recorded.

Correct. My training is comprised of mostly 2x20', 2x30', and VO2 Max intervals at prescribed wattages. No way in hell I'm doing them based on HR alone.

I'm pretty much with you OP as I only track for tempo/TT type efforts/FTP tests etc

And of course any actual race

Wait: I also find it important on long-slow runs, trying to make sure it stays under the LSR threshold for instance

---

//Noob triathlete//bike commuter//ex-swimmer//slower than you

No one uses HR for VO2 Max intervals. And of course you should not overdo it in the first 5 minutes of a TT. Yesterday I did an olympic distance. I do not have a PM but a HR monitor. However, I did not use the HR. I raced according to perceived exertion.
I must say I carry a HR monitor during my 2x20 intervals, but hardly use it. I noticed in the first interval the HR is lower, although the power should be the same. For these intervals I also set the pace according to perceived exertion.
I use the HR monitor though very slave-like when I do long bike workouts and long runs. No way I could do that with perceived exertion. I also use HR in a full IM. Some time ago I became sloppy in my long slow runs in that I did not take my HR monitor, I thought I can feel it. But I noticed I was more tired after the runs and needed longer regeneration. Until I started monitoring the HR again and saw I had run too fast before.

You don't neccessarily wear a hr strap to manage intensity, you do it to measure internal response to exercise.

Yep, I use HR to make sure I'm neither taking it too easy nor pushing too hard. It's not so much a performance metric for me as it is an aid to judging how hard I should push.

I use a Garmin chest strap on the bike as it's definitely the most reliable. I virtually never get spurious results.
However, I find chest straps uncomfortable and irritating on the run. They constantly threaten to slide down around my waist no matter how I adjust them (must be my triangular physique!) so I started using a Scosche Rhythm+ for running about 18 months ago and I far prefer it for running. It's not quite as reliable as the chest strap but it's usually pretty solid.

While I like having HR data, that's because I refer to it regularly both during and after training. I if the OP has been recording it but not using it than there's not much point. Just possessing data won't make your performances better! If you prefer to train with less data then that's the way to go. Most of us do this for fun. Why do it in a way you enjoy less just because everyone else does or because it might make you a little better. Do what you enjoy!
My younger brother is a far better athlete than me. He's been a competitive runner all his life. He's nearly 40 now and ever since he was 6 his sole training gadget has been a small cheap digital Casio wristwatch with a stopwatch function. No GPS, no HR, nothing but minutes and seconds and RPE. When a watch dies he goes out and buys another one for €10. He thinks I'm ridiculous with an expensive GPS watch and HR monitor. He runs because he loves it and while he is technically minded in other things, he wants to keep his running pure and simple. He enjoys his way, and it works very well for him. I enjoy mine and it works for me.

So, to the OP I'd say: Regardless of what others are doing, just decide what you enjoy and do that.

I think we're on the same track.

Also, this: https://www.trainingpeaks.com/...ance-and-decoupling/

If one is not monitoring HR, how is one looking at changes to fitness, recovery, etc.?

What if the OP could do 40km @ 280w @ 158bpm? Without a HRM, the OP would never know that HR was lower, and there was capacity to go harder—so maybe 290w...

IME: HR is also a much better metric for gauging recovery, and doing Z2 (when also used w/ a PM) on the bike. And, it's a great metric for racing in adverse conditions (too hot=high HR, cool = low HR, etc.).

---

no sponsors | no races | nothing to see here

But combined they can help paint a fuller picture.

How, exactly? What's it telling you that you don't know already?

Which is needed, for what?

At the end of the day, what matters is what you can put out, either watts or pace, not whether or not your hr is at a certain bpm.

I guess if you simply have no idea how to pace yourself or pay attention to how you're feeling, it may be useful, but if you've been doing sport for a while, at best it's redundant and at worst it's actually holding you back.

Perhaps it could tell you something about yourself while you are rested and tapered that you would not see while in deep training cycles, so at best it could let you go a little harder than power alone would suggest you are capable of.

It is measuring your response to exercise. You seem to be focusing on managing exercise intensity.

HR and HRV both bring lots of information about fatigue within and across workouts, inisghts into improvements in efficiency, illness, overtraining, undertraining etc

Its one of the 4 key metrics you should be tracking, alongside RPE and ROF, Power and Distance/Speed.

If you don't know how to get value from the data then you can could of course stop collecting it.

Mark

I don't think I've ever been held back by what I think I can do with power versus what I can. If I feel like I can go harder, I do. Again, I feel this type of reasoning is easily negated if you've ever ridden your bike before.

Response to exercise is fairly easily trackable via performance, no?

In what particular instance would knowing hr and hrv provide you with value that is unavailable in any other form?

HR response during each interval of a 2x20@85% of FTP and the recovery course during the rest intervals is very useful indeed.

"HR response during each interval of a 2x20@85% of FTP and the recovery course during the rest intervals is very useful indeed."

How would you use this info?

X2 ^^ I find if the temperature is a couple of degrees higher or lower or if the dewpoint is up or down or if I've eaten recently or not................all have a significant influence over my HR.

---

Genetics load the gun, lifestyle pulls the trigger.

actual data compared to my baseline zones can help confirm that it's could be more than just normal tired legs from lots of training. It's confirming what I feel with actual data. Some days my legs might be a little tired but my HR is fine and once I get into the workout they loosen up and I feel good. Other days I start out and I see a spike in my HR and it never comes down so I know to back off. My coach has me do some workouts specifying a target power range for say 2 hours but keeping an eye on my HR and if it gets past a certain rate and won't come back down then I'm supposed to back off for the remaining time in the ride. The more I've trained over my short triathlon career (4+ years, maybe a few years of running consistently before that) I've gotten better and better at being in tune with how I feel and my pace. I don't think that perception of feel is all that easy since often times when training for big events you're frequently tired because you're training a lot. HR is just another thing to consider.

Ok, so we've moved on from questioning if HR and HRV provide additional data and now want to work out how to interpret it alongside RPE, Power, Course etc

In a nutshell tracking fatigue, probability of overtraining and injury are the single greatest uses. HRV and HR response are great at indicating this across workouts. Obviously, you would look at other factors but HR and HRV is not /that/ unreliable.

There is lots in the literature about this, and a crapton of secondary stuff on the web. But basically low HRV is a strong indicator of fatigue, and delays in HR response (or lack of) to intensity are similar.

In this specific example, if the athlete reported RPE and ROF as higher than normal and the HR response was dulled, whilst HRV was low then you can pretty much say the athlete is fatigued. You can then look to see if you would expect that from the current training load, if maybe they need a rest, or its part and parcel of your planned overload.

Mark

I will train tough tired/sore legs all the time. I just got off the trainer and I felt beat from the jump, but all my power/hr stats were in line with just being tired/sore.

Yes, continuously tired legs even after a recovery period will point to overtraining, but by then you are in a hole. But when I'm trying to go hard and I just can't get my HR up, I've learned that is an early indicator of overtraining for me.

In that case tracking HR just saved me 2 or 3 workouts on legs that would be better off with a recovery effort. Maybe you are more in tune with your body than I am (entirely possible, no pink), but this metric helps me not overdo it, which I am *very* prone to doing.

---

Too old to go pro but doing it anyway
http://instagram.com/tgarvey4

I'm with you 100% here. Maybe it's not as reliable a metric as power, but you can glean useful training insight from your HR.

I have been training very hard for a 70.3 since February and just got a 935xt two weeks ago--started paying attention to my HR after a 6 month hiatus from the strap.

Strava says my "recovery run" pace is >8:18/mile based on my 5k PR. So my easy runs were typically around 8:20/mi. The second I ran with the 935xt in the heat I noticed that my HR at that pace was in zone 3 based on my known max, and now I know that my recovery runs/easy runs have not been as easy as they should have been.

I am also using a Garmin ConnectIQ App that shows you real time cadiac drift percentage. If in the race I see that the drift % is getting pretty high, especially early on in the race, I may need to adjust my pace down or get fluids/nutrition asap.

Also looking at my day-to-day resting heart rate has shown me when I'm ready for hard training and when I need recovery.

"Ok, so we've moved on from questioning if HR and HRV provide additional data and now want to work out how to interpret it alongside RPE, Power, Course etc"

No we haven't.

How do you monitor internal response to exercise intensity?