Login required to started new threads

Login required to post replies

reconsidering HR vs power training/racing
Quote | Reply
Hi all,

I am planning to do a long hillclimb race soon and it got me thinking about pacing through HR and/or power data. While I do subscribe to the power training philosophy, this climb is so steep and the weather so unpredictable (i.e. could be like 95 degrees and humid that day) that it had me wondering if HR data would be the way to go for pacing.

For example, say the day of the race turns out to be super hot and humid; couple that with the possibility of different pedaling dynamics due to the severity of the grade, and I start to wonder if it would be better to measure the stress on the "engine" rather than the power output at the road. My concern is that, pacing based on my flat-land FTP in good conditions could lead to a blowup whereas paying attention to my HR exertion (I have carefully mapped-out HR zones) would be a truer measure of how hard I am actually working.

What say you?
Quote Reply
Re: reconsidering HR vs power training/racing [johnj121591] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
It doesn't have to be either-or

I talk a lot - Give it a listen: http://www.fasttalklabs.com/category/fast-talk
I also give Training Advice via http://www.ForeverEndurance.com

The above poster has eschewed traditional employment and is currently undertaking the ill-conceived task of launching his own hardgoods company. Statements are not made on behalf of nor reflective of anything in any manner... unless they're good, then they count.
http://www.AGNCYINNOVATION.com
Quote Reply
Re: reconsidering HR vs power training/racing [xtrpickels] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
xtrpickels wrote:
It doesn't have to be either-or

That's my experience.

jaretj
Quote Reply
Re: reconsidering HR vs power training/racing [johnj121591] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
johnj121591 wrote:
Hi all,

I am planning to do a long hillclimb race soon and it got me thinking about pacing through HR and/or power data. While I do subscribe to the power training philosophy, this climb is so steep and the weather so unpredictable (i.e. could be like 95 degrees and humid that day) that it had me wondering if HR data would be the way to go for pacing.

For example, say the day of the race turns out to be super hot and humid; couple that with the possibility of different pedaling dynamics due to the severity of the grade, and I start to wonder if it would be better to measure the stress on the "engine" rather than the power output at the road. My concern is that, pacing based on my flat-land FTP in good conditions could lead to a blowup whereas paying attention to my HR exertion (I have carefully mapped-out HR zones) would be a truer measure of how hard I am actually working.

What say you?

Why not use a combination of both. The biggest risk with HR, is that it can take 5 minutes or more to equalize, and once it does, an big increase in intensity might take 30 seconds to register.

You should train for the specificity of the cadence, low inertia (steep hills or head winds) and position you'll be riding at. If you've done that, Power is Still the OUTPUT of your engine. Based on training, RPE and HR, you can use those to adjust your power target to compensate for conditions.

However, depending on the duration, the humidity and heat may or may not impact your output. You body is a big heat sink.

HR does sort of measure stress. But correlating it precisely to a target output is tricky at best. I've run a 1/2 marathon in cool conditions and it was about 10-20 BPM above what I consider my LTHR. Pretty much useless for pacing unless I wanted to under perform. It's value was more useful afterwards and going back through all of my pace, power, cadence and HR data and looking at trends.


TrainingBible Coaching
http://www.trainingbible.com
Quote Reply