Originally Posted by chaadster

The seminal and most important book on power training, Training and Racing with a Power Meter by Allen and Coggan not only mentions HR, but acknowledges the benefit of HR awareness and includes it in their tables for setting zones, so I don’t know on what authority or expertise those who claim use of HR with power is a mistake, but it’s certainly a part of all major power training platforms I’ve seen, including Training Peaks, Carmichael, Friel, Wattbike, Strava to Zwift. I’m not familiar with any power based training program which does not use HR.

I disagree with your assesment of the reason for the dominance of power based training. It’s simply more time-efficient and effectivet HR. All top cyclists in every discipline, from road to track and even BMX, use power meters, and unless it’s your assertion that top level, professional racer coaching, from Tour de France teams to the Olympics, “lacks the experience” to understand HR training, your comment is obviously absurd.

Originally Posted by Carbonfiberboy

I said no such thing. You're putting words in my mouth. You might want to reread my post, then yours. See the difference? And power is not simply "more time-efficient and effectivet HR." Sometimes it is, but mostly it isn't, which is the advantage of using both. I could point out a couple of simple examples: 3 X 3 X3 VO2max intervals, a 3000' climb in the heat.

I also didn't mention any "power-based training program". Repeating myself, I said, "power-based training plan." Some plans are offered as either power or HR based versions. Quoting myself again, "so far I haven't seen a power-based training plan which made any mention of HR." That doesn't mean they don't exist. Maybe so. I said, "so far I haven't seen." You have examples I could look at? What I'm talking about is like that 3 X 3 x 3 set at 110% or whatever which also says something like "your HR should be well into Z5 by the end of the 3rd interval. If it isn't, your FTP might be set too low or you might be too tired for this workout."

Quoting myself again, "IMO the HRM takes more experience to interpret than does power. IMO, this latter is the reason for the quick adoption of power among cyclists." I don't see pro or elite riders as "quick adopters." I'm talking about the folks who are getting power meters so they can follow their first training plan. It's the in thing to do. Not that there's anything wrong with that! Power meters are wonderful tools. I was an early adopter of the HRM in '96. Remember Sally Edwards' Heart Zone Training? What I don't see on BF are any riders planning on getting an HRM to follow their first plan. And that said, it could have been that the same percentage were getting an HRM back in the day also, but I wasn't following that adoption on social media. Maybe I'm wrong and it's about the same.

It would be appreciated if you would please not misconstrue my posts. And I'll bookmark your reply for future discussions with the anti-HRM crowd, so thanks for that.

Originally Posted by downtube42

Tall, short-legged riders, on the other hand, have to kludge things together.

While I'm at it, why the $&^@ do clothing makers assume that if your torso is long, it's also huuuuuuuge around?

Originally Posted by Cougrrcj

Yep, I get it! Just TRY to find a dress shirt with a 18-1/2" neck (my neck is over 18" so if I need to button the top button just to wear a tie, I need a 18-1/2" or 19" neck shirt). If I do find one, it is made for a really BIG person! I also need a 46Long or 48Long jacket to fit my chest/shoulders, but with my 34" waist, I'm swimming in it! Doubly so if I need a long-sleeve shirt. 34 or 34-1/2" sleeves for me. 5'8", and Long of torso, but short (29") inseam. Yep, I'm built like Magilla Gorilla... XXL 7-5/8" hat size. Take the average 6'3"-person upper body/arms and put it on 5'3"-person legs! 8EEE shoes with extremely high arches. I'm living proof that somebody in God's body-design-shop was either having an off day - or they had a warped sense of humor!