Power Meter v Heart Rate Zone Training

In my previous post I described some of the limitations of training exclusively in mountainous terrain.  Essentially, while my climbing ability and capacity have increased substantially (I routinely, if not easily, pass DF / standard / upright cyclists on the inclines) my ability and capacity for uninterrupted application of power (i.e., on flats or hilly/rolling terrain) has become a limiting factor.

One would assume that the use of a power meter would be the first place to go in such a situation.  That is, use the power meter to make sure that I apply consistent wattage in order to `fill in' the hole that mountainous training presents.  But that assumption is, in my experience, completely wrong. 

Consider that you're descending a 2% - 4% grade for 3 miles.  Even into a headwind, when will you `spin out?'  And when you `spin out' how much power are you using?  When you `spin out' and your power output drops to almost zero your heart rate will drop, as well.  In my case, and in that situation, my heart rate drops to the mid-60's. 

If I persisted in applying 175 - 200 watts on such a descent I will increase my speed to 38 - 42 mph speed almost immediately - and then spin out.  Then what?  Power output terminates.  Heart rate drops dramatically.

(An obvious thought crosses our mind: get a bigger front ring.  56t?  60t?  80t?  And when will you spin out?  Thirty seconds later?  And where will you find a front derailleur that can handle the spread between that big ring and the more `terrestrial' smaller [39t, 30t] rings required for the flats, wind and/or inclines / climbing?)

So, in my analysis, putting a power meter on the bike will not address the fundamental problem that mountainous training presents, i.e., the lack of uninterrupted and continuous power and heart rate demand. 

Here is where I find myself adding significant amount of time to indoor training, where I can place uninterrupted demand for increased watts and heart rate training. 

Heart rate zone training is not as predictable and consistent as power meter training. 

Say, for example, that I had a very heavy workout yesterday.  It is probable that my heart rate today for the same effort would be higher.  Essentially, if 30 minutes at 250 watts put my heart rate into Heart Rate Zone 2.5 yesterday my Heart Rate Zone would more likely be in the 3 - 3.25range today. 

So there appears to be no doubt but that a power meter would solve the `hole' in mountainous terrain training.  But is that the only solution?  And, is that the most realistic solution?

---

On the long distance endurance cycling and racing I have done I have never used a power meter.  Mostly because I didn't want to spend the money.  (There is only so much of this stuff that I want to afford).  But I have noted that if I attempted to maintain a particular speed it would impact my heart rate. 

On the Race Across the West in 2010 (I dnf'd after 400 miles - insufficient training) my average heart rate was 106 bpm, i.e., just short ot my Heart Rate Zone 2 (111 bpm).  I made good time to the Congress Time Station (#6) under the circumstances.  But my endurance `terminated' at that point. 

I `speculate' that if I attempted to keep to a particular power wattage (wisely set at a realistic number) for a long (12+ hours) span of time one of two things would happen.  Either I'd learn that I'd have to reduce the wattage number, or, I'd learn that in maintaining that wattage number my heart rate would move too high, ultimately affecting my endurance.  (Unless I were already on the `other side' of this experiment :))

---

Here is what I plan to do in my indoor training over the near (3 - 6 months) term.  I will not purchase a power meter.  Instead I will use Heart Rate Zone training to increase my endurance (and power).

Some practical (if not optimal) reasons:

• I don't want to spend any more money on expensive watt measurement indoor training stuff (e.g., CompuTrainer);
• I don't want to purchase a crank-based power meter ($2,500 to $4,000); 
• I like the fact that the LeMond Revolution indoor trainer does not require a rear wheel;
• In the long run I want to increase my ability to stay in the upper ranges of Heart Rate Zone 2 (111-129 bpm) while not experiencing reduced endurance (and power).

I realize that without a power meter to sync with my heart rate I will be at a `quantitative measurement' disadvantage.  And it would be ideal if the folks at LeMond built a device that measured both Heart Rate and Power data.  (They do, but it has received terrible reviews and sells for an exhorbitant price).

So what would a 2 hour indoor HRZ workout look like?  Here is yesterday's HRZ workout:

1. 20 minutes at HRZ 2
2. 20 minutes at HRZ 3
3. 20 minutes at HRZ 1
4. 20 minutes at HRZ 2
5. 20 minutes at HRZ 3
6. 5 minutes at HRZ 1
7. 20 minutes at HRZ 3

• Resulting in an `Intensity Score' of 2.25 for the entire workout.  (Contact me if you want to know how I came up with the `Intensity Score' factor). 
• My subjective post-workout `fatigue' rating for yesterday was about 6.5 out of 10 (it had been 7 days since I was on a bike and I believe it would have been much lower, e.g., 3.5 - 4, otherwise).

Here is the 2 hour indoor HRZ workout for later today:

1. 5 minutes at HRZ 1
2. 20 minutse at HRZ 2
3. 5 minutes at HRZ 3
4. 20 minutes at HRZ 2
5. 5 minutes at HRZ 1
6. 20 minutse at HRZ 2
7. 5 minutes at HRZ 3
8. 5 minutes at HRZ 1
9. 20 minutes at HRZ 2
10. 10 minutes at HRZ 3
11. 5 minutes at HRZ 1

• Resulting in and `Intensity Score' of 2.0 for the same two hour indoor workout. 

I will be applying this strategy and indoor training method over the next several weeks or months in order to assess outcomes.  The primary outcome measure (lacking a power meter) will be to lessen the fatigue rating and to increase the amount of time in HRZ's 3 - 5. 

It is my intention to post on this blog the experiences and outcome of this HRZ training method.