The main one where I heard it was our XC race that was less than an hour. But I also heard it from a couple in our road race that was just under 2 hours for some riders. Sort of two notable differences there, so I know people might handle them differently, but some here were locked onto HR for sure.
Yeapā¦ the power meter companies did a great job in marketing the power meterā¦ and it still persistes. However great for pacing a steady efforts, 5 - 15 minutes, but generally very over stated, and often not needed most of the time even in training. I would go as far to say if you know your normal HR response to caffeine then it is superior. Heat, dehydration, lack of sleep power is inferior.
People seem to think power is power, the truth, irrespective of sleep, heat, dehydration this is simpley not true.
- Barring technical issues, it really is. The power data doesnāt lie or change based on the items below.
- How we experience and handle that truth is the crux & human element here
Itās only after spending 8+ years messing with this stuff, making TONS of mistakes and such that I have better tuned my RPE in particular, with Power & HR as references. Bigger picture and all that noise 
2 Likes
Not in the context I mentionedā¦ it is not the truth about whats going on stress wise.
Couldnāt disagree more. Power meters measure work effort. Heart rate monitors provide information on how your body is reacting to that effort (and other loads like heat, life stress, fatigue, caffeine, etc.). Example - if I go for a run at my normal pace (work effort) in Florida heat/humidity of summer, then my heart rate will show me there are additional loads on the system (body dealing w/ heat).
2 Likes
Perceived exertion provides more. And, itās always there, even if you forget to put on your heart rate strap or the battery is dead.
PPP: If you know your power, then at best heart rate is redundant, but at worst it is deceiving.
Donāt think Iād ever knock off an effort because of HR if I was hanging on - itās always a theoretical anyway based off tests. My race screen is distance, time, HR and power - but when the racingās on I donāt think I ever look at it!
1 Like
My story is this: I had trained for a 30 km running race in Houston wearing a HR monitor (pace not meaning much when youāre running on a beach, weaving around shipping detritus, blobs of oil/tar, and dead jellyfish). My goal was to break 2 h. I hit the 1 mile mark right on pace, but my HR was ~10 beats/min higher than expected. At that point, I had two choices: give up on my goal, or choose to ignore my HR. I opted for the former, and barely squeaked under 2 h, really pushing hard the last couple of miles into a headwind and finishing on dead legs.
(Of course, thereās also the time I did a 40 km TT in the heat and humidity of Florida, where despite being well-acclimatized - since I lived in Galveston at the time - my average HR was higher than my normal maximal HR.)
Absolutely not.
3 Likes
I agree, if I was only allowed to have one, Iād take my bodyās own monitoring system and senses - perceived exertion. Load side measurement (power meter), body reaction side measurement (RPE, HR). There is a reason experienced and pro cyclists/coaches still use HRMs.
Depends on how theyāre using them.
Looking at HR data post-ride as a data point is a world away from using it during the ride to determine how to meter oneās effort.
1 Like
Yes: itās a tradition-bound sport, very slow to adopt new ideas. Just look at how physiological testing is still valued by that community, when bigger thinkers like Frank Overton or the AIS have long moved on.
Even the undergraduate ex sci student/collegiate runner is smart enough to independently realize that such testing usually doesnāt provide any āactionable intelligenceā. How is it that she āgets itā, and yet folks like ISM donāt? (Thatās a rhetorical questionā¦thereās a reason sheās going to make an impact on the field after she gets her PhD.)
For Z3+, power has priority, donāt care about HR (2-3x per week). Only look it at post-ride, even hide it from headunit main display.
But for Z1-Z2 (12h+/week), I still go by HR cap ā no single workout affects me much but exceeding some certain HR threshold (146bpm for me, with 180bpm LTHR / 205bpm observed max HR) over extended periods (weeks/months), I know I will lose motivation first and then everything else falls apart.
1 Like
I donāt agree. Iāll give an example. I live in Florida, where our heat and humidity in the summer gets us to 115 deg heat index, and stays elevated even in the late evening. Iāll use my heart rate to monitor my bodies reaction to this heat. It will show me this additional load and make me aware of this situation before I start feeling sick from overheating. Iāve been doing this for 32 years.
And even bigger thinkers (Dr. Stephen Seiler) have still not āmoved onā from HRMs. 
1 Like
I will put the same challenge before you that I have always suggested to others: come up with a use-case in which heart rate provides actionable intelligence that canāt be obtained from power and perceived exertion.
(Heck, even the context of stress testing of cardiac patients - something I did every Tuesday afternoon for about 10 y - the first thing my cardiologist friend would always ask when something seemed amiss was not āWhatās the heart rate?ā but instead would ask the patient āHow are you feeling?ā.)
I wouldnāt describe Seiler as a ābig thinkerā.
Your perceived exertion doesnāt tell you how your body is reacting to the heat? (Again, rhetorical question: obviously it does.)
Thatās the thing, I keep feeling fine for months until I donāt and then it is already little bit late. It takes roughly 2 weeks to get appetite for riding back.
1 Like
You could achieve the same end result by ditching the heart rate monitor and going by power and perceived exertion.