In Reply To:
Now that I have that out of my system, time for some sensible posting:
Using power on the bike is similar to using pace on the run to measure your performance. it is the teue measure of your performance. It is similar to using a stop watch at the track. It gives you instant feedback on what your bottom line output is. It does not tell you what effort level you had to put into it to create that level of output. If you can run a 5 minute mile without using a HR monitor you don't know if it was easy or hard. You can use perceived effort but that has its own issues. If you use heart rate, no matter what the pace you are going or what power output you are at you will know whether the effort level is appropriate or not. This based on a stratgey of the pace or power output to improve at any given heart rate with fitness. When combined bottom with power measurement it will tell you that you are getting faster or not.
The power meter is not a bad tool, but its kinda the same as saying I want to run 3 min kms and then targetting that when you either can't do it or are not physiologically ready for it I prefer to quote actual physiologists on the subject (bold added):
Quote:
Monitoring heart rate (HR) provides one possible way around the above problem, since at least
under carefully standardized conditions there is a close relationship between HR and the actual
exercise intensity (i.e., power output or rate of oxygen consumption (VO2)) (Fig. 1). This method
has therefore been widely adopted in cycling and to a lesser degree in other sports (e.g., running).
However, while theoretically sound the use of HR to quantify training intensity does have certain
practical limitations. One is that although HR is closely correlated with exercise intensity in a
laboratory-type setting, this relationship is not nearly as strong while cycling outdoors (Fig. 1).
This is due to the wide variety of factors that can influence HR during exercise. For example,
altitude, heat, hypohydration/dehydration, recent illness or infection, lack of sleep, and large
fluctuations in power output (e.g., in a group ride setting, or in hilly terrain) all tend to increase
HR during exercise at a given intensity, whereas acute overreaching has the opposite effect. In
addition, the relationship of HR to power can differ between individuals, even if normalized in
some manner, e.g., to the HR measured during a time trial (TT), or to maximal HR measured at
the end of an incremental exercise test. As a result of such factors, the actual demands imposed
by training can differ considerably between workouts or between individuals even if HR or
relative HR is kept the same. Moreover, since HR responds relatively slowly (half-life = ~30 s)
to changes in exercise intensity, HR monitoring cannot be used to regulate the intensity of
shorter efforts, such as brief intervals aimed at enhancing anaerobic capacity or sprints designed
to increase neuromuscular power.
Finally, it must be kept in mind that HR is not a direct
determinant of performance, but is simply a reflection of the strain imposed on the
cardiovascular system by the exercise. (This last point is seemingly often overlooked, as
demonstrated by the frequency with which coaches and athletes emphasize the need to minimize
HR during exercise, when in fact the true goal is to maximize performance regardless of the
“cost” in terms of HR.) Thus, while HR monitoring can be useful for detecting training-induced
changes in cardiovascular fitness (i.e., maximal oxygen uptake, or VO2max), it will generally be
insensitive to changes in other key determinants of performance, most importantly the rider’s
metabolic fitness, i.e., their lactate threshold (LT).
http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/