HR, pacing and power - testing, zones (Page 2)

Power is an output. Like pace or speed. Power has no connection with stress on the body. While I would agree that training on power is the best of the outputs, its still just an output. Training by HR has some friends in Bryan's corner. Like me. And practically every pro who has ever won Kona. and practically every pro who has won the Tour (at least those who had the the technology to train by hr). I'm sure there are some greats who didn't, but the vast majority do. Often they train by both though (hr and an output).

I agree with Bryan though in that the best measure to train with is the one you fully understand and will stick with. Training by something you don't understand or don't really like will be nothing but frustrating.

I agree with Bryan as well, somewhat.

1. That first sentence I quoted is kinda odd.
2. Output is the goal.
3. Mimicking professionals is an endeavour fraught with peril.

Great discussion.   Brian: on a hot day do you cap your pace according to your HR or do you execute a workout at your planned pace knowing that your HR is 10-15 bpm higher?   Dave seems to be saying no as that would lead to suboptimal training efforts.

When it's REALLY hot, like here during the summer 100+, it's almost impossible to run to pace in the afternoon. As you correctly point out, HR will be very elevated and pace is greatly reduced. It's not as bad on the bike as the flow of air provides a modicom of cooling relief. Any run done in heat in excess of 90-95 degrees I have no choice but to run slower, you just can't run fast as your body has too work too hard to keep your core temperature down. That manifests itself in your HR spiking higher, and you MUST heed that data. Like a watt is a watt, bpm's are bpm's and your heart doesn't care what you are doing, it only cares about the work it is having to do to keep you alive. So training in excessive heat does lead to subotpimal training and that's why we try and do quality run work in the pre-dawn hours around here. The same consideration would also apply to power under those conditions as power requires a physical output to produce and that output is compromised due to the bodies need to address cooling issues.

..and Dave makes a very good point here. He's correct, HR can be effected by all of the above as well as temperature. I would simply suggest that if you work with HR exclusively, over time, you will learn how your body responds to various forms of stress and be able to adapt accordingly.

I think this is the issue that people consistently gloss over.  A watt is a watt - but your ability to produce that watt varies.  People harp about the variability of HR, and it's completely correct, but you cannot always produce the same effort (measured by power) day after day - or even at different times of the day.  People seem to forget or ignore that the same (or different) things that affect HR can/will also affect power.

I couldn't have said it better, Bryan. The more you work with HR, the more you understand why your body is responding the way it is and you can adjust by slowing down, allowing a higher ceiling on your HR range, or whatever. By training only with an output like power, the info has no connection with the stress on your body (there's that oddly worded sentence again!) So if you go out in 100+ degree heat and try and hold some arbitrary wattage (or speed for that matter), you could potentially be throwing yourself in the hurt box simply by trying to maintain an easy power zone.  Then you wonder why you are so exhausted....

Fantastic discussion, everyone. Thank you all for your input. HR has seemed a good tool for me over the past 2 years - I've gotten that body physiology connection.

I also find it an interesting discussion given that most discussions I've read of this nature push the power meter significantly over HR. It is refreshing to see so many top athletes chime in on this conversation in support of HR.

Please, keep discussing...

You made me feel a little bit better about not having power.  Thanks.    I use a combination of HR and RPE and I must say I got pretty good and guessing what my HR is going to be based on how I feel.  I am not very good at utilizing it on the bike yet, but I feel it serves me well on the run. 

Let me again say, I am not arguing AGAINST power at all. I'm simply advocating for power as well as other training protocols which can help people improve. Human physiology and adapations are very complicated, misunderstood, and personal and I don't believe there is ONE method which is THE BEST. My only beef with PM proponents is they perpetuate the concept that using one is the ONLY way. I like to think there are many ways.

Edited by bryancd 2010-12-15 10:49 AM

I don't think even MOST "PM proponents" perpetuate the concept that using one is the only way.  Many would argue that power & RPE is better than HR & RPE.  That's not the same as saying that using the latter can't be effective.  Or that using power while ignoring everything else (conditions, "feel", etc.) is a good idea.

If you did have to choose ONLY one thing, then I would say RPE is your best bet.

You should hear some of them over on ST.

I admit, I haven't been reading over there as much as I used to.  It certainly wasn't true in the past, but maybe it's changed.  I'll qualify it to "knolwedgable" PM proponents. 

Well stated. I think despite my limited experience, I have to agree 100%.

You just inspired me to write a simple guide to "calculating training levels" that I'll add to our online support, the cycling plan v3.0 and other services, but in the mean time let me answer your question.

First a few reminders:

1st -  training levels (aka zones) are man made as a way to help us train more efficiently. In reality though our bodies doesn't really know when we are training at level 1 or 4 beyond the fact that a series of physiological mechanisms occur at more or less degrees. Hence, while you do a session at level 4 which might improve certain adaptations like improving maximum lactate steady state (MLSS), VO2 max, glycogen storage, etc. it still will induce certain adaptations that are maximized at other zones in a lesser degree (i.e. increase muscle fatigue resistance, muscle mitochondrial enzymes, etc)

2nd - not all training zones are defined in the same way. Some use VO2 max, some others I personally ignore how Joel Friel determined his training zones or based on MLSS, some others on lactate threshold, others on ventilatory threshold and some other in more controversial ways such as AeT or MAF. People are free to use any method they perceived valuable or one that fits their needs/beliefs.

*Personally* I based training zones based on Critical Power/Velocity which is highly correlated with MLSS and the reason for this is that there is ample evidence suggesting MLSS is one of the most effective ways to simply tracking a series of physiological adaptations without invasive testing and using simple tools such as a power meter or clock/GPS for pacing.

For the athletes using a HR I still like to guesstimate based of MLSS though I also understand the limitations to this approach

3rd - Considering the above, all the training levels I use with my athletes are a % of either Critical Power (power), Critical Velocity (pace) or HR at MLSS. To get the most accurate levels it is recommended to do 1 hr maximal effort which will most resemble our pace/power/HR at MLSS but the reality is that not all athletes have the motivation or time to perform this type of testing. (extra reading here)

The 2nd best thing we have found (we = group of coaches, physiologists, physicians at the Physfarm Consortium Group) are estimates of MLSS using short tests that highly correlate with power/pace/HR at longer durations. For power I use Monod's Critical Power model (CP), for running I use critical velocity (CV) and swimming critical swim speed (CSS) both based on the same premise and for heart rate I use linear relationship between HR and submaximal efforts.

Trust me, we undertand none of this is perfect and there will always be outliers hence we adjust accordingly. We also have access to a big data base of athletes testing with different tools and that allows us to constantly brainstorm about testing protocols and ways to establish training levels, measure/quantify performance, etc.

With that out of the way, yes you could use a shorter maximal test to estimate your power, velocity or heart rate as % of MLSS as long as you understand this approach has limitations, the general rules are just that, rules that you'll have to adjust within your own training and in the end, quoting Andrew Coggan, "the best predictor for performance is performance itself." Hence if you want to know your 1 hr power or HR, well, just go do a 40K TT or a road race that will take you roughly that (10K or 10 miler run)

There are some general "rules of thumb":

For testing you can either:
- do a 20MP test and use 95% of it to estimate your 1 hr power
- do 2x20min max effort with 2 min rest and use the avg to estimate your 1 hr power
- Use Critical power model doing a short 3-5min and a long less than 30 min tests to estimate your CP
- use critical velocity/critical swim speed which same as CP uses two short and longish tests to estimate it
- you can use Jack Daniels VDOT or other online calculators to determine running paces
- do a 30 min test and take your average Heart Rate and multiply by 0.97 to guesstimate your HR at MLSS
- do a 20 min test and take your average Heart Rate and multiply by 0.95 to guesstimate your HR at MLSS

or just do whatever activity you want to test (swim, bike, run) for around 1 hr maximal effort and your avg pace, power or HR will be what you use to determine training levels.

As for levels you can use Joel Friel though as I said I am not sure how he determined those, you can use Andrew Coggan power/HR levels, you can use what we use through Physfarm and what I use at PBM Coaching explained briefly here on in more detail on Skiba's Book, or other method.

Whatever testing protocol you chose and method you use to define training levels just make sure you stick to it so you can be able to compare testing results/improvements over time and you always are speaking the same language about your training. IOW there is no one best way to do this, there are different, some IMO better or more robust than others.

At the end of the day, what I/we do is based on what I/we perceived as the better simpler way to achieve this making our athletes' training more efficient. But I/we are happy to present the evidence as to why we do what we do and are clear communicating this is only my/our way, nothing more, nothing else. If tomorrow we find a better way, we'll surely try it and even change to use it. Athletes are free to use this information and apply, ignore or dismiss it.

I should say again I have been on a power meter for 6 years and I almost always wear a HR strap. I find both useful.

If I go out in a 100 degree heat, I scale back. It is no harder to scale back power than it is to scale back pace or raise your HR levels at a given pace.

JohnnyKay - ST has become very anti-HR of late. You know how it goes. 3-5 frequent posters get behind a cause and suddenly something new (old) is in vogue again.  This bugs me.

My bottom line is not the ST mantra that HR is not useful at all. I find it to be useful. I find power numbers moreso is all.

I'm glad I can be a source of inspiration. 8^)

Excellent post - thank you! The links are very good reading and a lot can be clarified from there. In particular, your comment:



supports and emphasizes what I was thinking in an earlier posts. Sometime I lose site of that, being such a data junkie. As I mentioned before,



That being said, I still like the numbers.

How do MLSS, LT and Critical Power/Velocity interelate?  I read over the linked article by Jorge.

I've recently got a powertap and will be beginning training by power on the bike and have been very interseted in training by pace for swim and run, rather than using only HR. 

I know my HR LT from running and cycling, by taking the LT from the 30min test protocol.   How does this relate to MLSS and Critical Power/Velocity?  Does MLSS = CP/CV, LT = CP/CV? 

MLSS relates to CP/CV which roughly is the pace you should be able to sustain during a 1 hr maximal effort.

Lactate Threshold (LT) as physiologically define is 1 mmol/liter above the athlete's baseline. That is, when the lactate concentration in your blood goes up by 1 mmol/liter when resting to exercising, you achieve your LT. It roughly equates to the point you are burning around the same % of fat and carbs to fuel your activity.

This is lower of what most people think because books like the 'bible' use LT to describe 1 hr effort when in reality is referring to MLSS. LT is roughly around ~73-78% of your CP/CV (depending on the athlete fitness level and physiology).

Weather you train with power/pace/HR or even just RPE, if you test based of a 1 hr mx effort (+/-), then it will be intimately related to MLSS hence your training levels (zones) can be guesstimate from it and allow you to train more specifically.

Edited by JorgeM 2010-12-16 9:47 AM

Excellent, Thank you.

Great post, Jorge. I did just that this past weekend at a 10 mile trail race. I knew it would afford me a great opportunity to test my run threshold HR and it did just that!