Percieved Effort vs HRM

[Sam Kennedy]

Okay, I might be opening another can of worms here, but I found a HRM is far more useful then going by percieved effort. Whenever I train by what I feel, I keep telling myself "I'm not working hard enough", and end up pushing myself to the point of being ill.

Anyone else here find that their body doesn't tell them to stop even though they are overtraining?

 

[Rockus]

Hey Sam

Totally agree, i think you def second guess yourself when you just blast it. Cycling seems to be more about measured effort and getting as much data about your riding is the way forward IMO. I've got a wee daily 13mile ride that keeps me going. I tried for ages to beat my PB on it, even when l felt l was working hard, i ended up with sometimes mediocre times. After some rides looking at HR and sleepness of climbs VS my ave speed etc i knocked 4mins of my time. Quite pleased with that although now i dont stay of the bike long enough to get rested for my next crack at it lol.

I love bikes, they get you thinking. all the best mate.

 

[WimbledonCyclist]

I guess a HRM is slightly more accurate than perceived effort. A HRM is not perfect, because your heart rate tells you only how fast your heart is beating, not how hard your (other) muscles are working. Taking lactace samples or measuring the Watt output is more accurate, but more expensive and/or more hassle and/or invasive. HRM monitoring is easier/cheaper than these more accurate methods, and still fairly accurate.

I also think that the very use of a HRM with 'target training zones' encourages you to train in a variety of training zones - aerobic, close to threshold, heavily anaerobic etc. etc, and so even if the HRM doesn't give the best in accuracy, you'll probably end up with a training regime with enough diversity to improve a bit on all these counts.

That said, I think my body is reasonably OK telling me when I'm putting in too much effort. I also think that perceived effort and a good sense of target pace / power output have a slight edge over HRM when the time of each repeat during an interval workout is short.

Finally, the best use of an HRM against overtraining may lie in using it for monitoring your resting heart rate. Take your RHR in the morning while you're still in bed, before getting up, and if it's higher than normal, you've got an indication that you may be overtraining, that your body is trying to fight a new ailment or a bug, or that you had too much lemonade the night before :-)

 

[Pottsy]

Equally if you're not racing then squeezing out a few percent more from your performance might not be important to you. You might prefer less information and statistics and just want to go out and enjoy yourself and ride depending on how you feel.

I have a foot in both camps, depends what I'm out riding for e.g. touring is very different than a fast road ride with friends.

I do appreciate this is posted in Health, Fitness & Training though and there's no denying a HRM can be useful for pure training effiiciency (if you know what you're doing ).

 

[Bill Gates]

I guess a HRM is slightly more accurate than perceived effort. A HRM is not perfect, because your heart rate tells you only how fast your heart is beating, not how hard your (other) muscles are working. Taking lactace samples or measuring the Watt output is more accurate, but more expensive and/or more hassle and/or invasive. HRM monitoring is easier/cheaper than these more accurate methods, and still fairly accurate.

I also think that the very use of a HRM with 'target training zones' encourages you to train in a variety of training zones - aerobic, close to threshold, heavily anaerobic etc. etc, and so even if the HRM doesn't give the best in accuracy, you'll probably end up with a training regime with enough diversity to improve a bit on all these counts.

That said, I think my body is reasonably OK telling me when I'm putting in too much effort. I also think that perceived effort and a good sense of target pace / power output have a slight edge over HRM when the time of each repeat during an interval workout is short.

Finally, the best use of an HRM against overtraining may lie in using it for monitoring your resting heart rate. Take your RHR in the morning while you're still in bed, before getting up, and if it's higher than normal, you've got an indication that you may be overtraining, that your body is trying to fight a new ailment or a bug, or that you had too much lemonade the night before :-)

On the contrary.

If you use a HRM you can tell when it's OK for the next interval, between the sets i.e. when your your HR hits 65% or less of MHR.

IMO that's more important than knowing your HR during the effort

 

[yenrod]

Okay, I might be opening another can of worms here, but I found a HRM is far more useful then going by percieved effort. Whenever I train by what I feel, I keep telling myself "I'm not working hard enough", and end up pushing myself to the point of being ill.

Anyone else here find that their body doesn't tell them to stop even though they are overtraining?

NO - Actually, Sam, you need someone behind you shouting 'move ya bloody arse son, come on yuh slacker, Ive seen a baby move faster....'

You know, that kind of thing !

 

[I am Spartacus]

Ditch the HRM when you are on that hill sprint.

 

[WimbledonCyclist]

On the contrary.

If you use a HRM you can tell when it's OK for the next interval, between the sets i.e. when your your HR hits 65% or less of MHR.

IMO that's more important than knowing your HR during the effort

Hm, but I don't always want that recovery between intervals. It depends on why you're doing them. Sometimes I actually want to have a short recovery, if I want to give my legs a heavy acidosis for example. Waiting relatively long for a certain %MHR means the legs will remove more of the lactic acid than I want, when I actually want them to work when plenty of lactic acid is still around. Training effect in this example should be that muscles adapt by improving buffering capacity.

If you had said that "it's OK for the next interval ... E.G. [not: i.e.] when your heart rate hits 65%", then I'd agree - for your purpose. But for some training forms, it is perfectly OK to go for a time-based, short recovery, without bothering about heart rates. It's your leg muscles you're giving a workout, that's where you want your training effect. It's all about what's happening in your legs, and your heart rate can be a poor proxy for that. I was only giving an example of when that may be the case.

 

[Bill Gates]

Hm, but I don't always want that recovery between intervals. It depends on why you're doing them. Sometimes I actually want to have a short recovery, if I want to give my legs a heavy acidosis for example. Waiting relatively long for a certain %MHR means the legs will remove more of the lactic acid than I want, when I actually want them to work when plenty of lactic acid is still around. Training effect in this example should be that muscles adapt by improving buffering capacity.

If you had said that "it's OK for the next interval ... E.G. [not: i.e.] when your heart rate hits 65%", then I'd agree - for your purpose. But for some training forms, it is perfectly OK to go for a time-based, short recovery, without bothering about heart rates. It's your leg muscles you're giving a workout, that's where you want your training effect. It's all about what's happening in your legs, and your heart rate can be a poor proxy for that. I was only giving an example of when that may be the case.

Then you're using neither PE nor HR as you are not actually measuring anything. PE is about effort not recovery.

 

[jimboalee]

Think of your nervous system the same as an O2 sensor in a motorcar's exhaust pipe.

Lactic acid 'burn' = slow down.
No lactic acid 'burn' = speed up.

When you get to a hill, switch to 'lambda feedback disable' and give it Wide Open Throttle.

 

[WimbledonCyclist]

Then you're using neither PE nor HR as you are not actually measuring anything. PE is about effort not recovery.

That's true. I think we're talking cross purposes here. I was talking about the HRM not being the best guide to the effort during the effort stage of the interval.

Your underlying point is a good one. You need to have some recovery / rest between intervals. But there's no reason why you should always recover to 65% MHR, or any other HR measure for that matter. Going by time can be fine if you're doing lactate tolerance work. You don't miss much by not measuring recovery if you use sensible timings. Depending on your interval distances and objectives, rest between interval repeats can vary anywhere between 10 seconds to several minutes.

HRMs have their uses. All I'm saying is that they're not the final word. Feel free to go by the clock or just what feels good at the time occasionally. If you have a hammer, all problems will look like nails. Same goes for HRMs and %MHR.

 

[Bill Gates]

That's true. I think we're talking cross purposes here. I was talking about the HRM not being the best guide to the effort during the effort stage of the interval.

Your underlying point is a good one. You need to have some recovery / rest between intervals. But there's no reason why you should always recover to 65% MHR, or any other HR measure for that matter. Going by time can be fine if you're doing lactate tolerance work. You don't miss much by not measuring recovery if you use sensible timings. Depending on your interval distances and objectives, rest between interval repeats can vary anywhere between 10 seconds to several minutes.

HRMs have their uses. All I'm saying is that they're not the final word. Feel free to go by the clock or just what feels good at the time occasionally. If you have a hammer, all problems will look like nails. Same goes for HRMs and %MHR.

It depends on your approach to intervals. Most of what I read and hear is that riders will focus on a set number of intervals and regulated recovery periods between sets. They will adjust their effort to fit into this schedule. I have a different approach. When I ride intervals on the road I find a piece of road with a smooth surface that has about 2.5/3 miles straight and a RAB at each end.

Then I concentrate on getting my effort up to the speed I want to race at. Get towards the turn (50 yards away) ease up into a low gear, go around the turn and when I get about 50 yards into the opposite direction then the same again. Checking my HR to see if I've recovered dicates how many intervals I can do. I will initially only maybe complete 2 intervals but when I build up to 4+ then I'm ready to race at that pace over 10 miles.