J Sports Sci Med. 2011 Sep 1;10(3):498-501. eCollection 2011.
Technological advances in interval training for cyclists have led to the development of both heart rate (HR) monitors and powermeters (PM). Despite the growing popularity of PM use, the superiority of PM-based training has not been established. The aim of the present study was to investigate the relative effectiveness of HR-based versus PM-based interval training on 20 km time trial (20km TT), lactate threshold (LT) power, and peak aerobic capacity (VO2max) in recreational cyclists. Participants (n =20; M age=33.9, SD =13) completed a baseline 20km TT to establish their VO2max and LT and were then randomly assigned to either HR-determined or PM-determined training sessions. Over a period of up to 5 weeks participants completed 7.2 (± 1.1) interval training sessions at their specific LT for their respective interval training method. Repeated measures analyses of variances (ANOVAs) showed that both HR-based and PM-based training groups significantly improved their LT power (F(1,16) = 28., p < 0.01, eta(2) = 0.63) and 20km TT time (F(1,16) = 4.92, p = 0.04, eta(2) = 0.24) at posttest, showing a 17 watt increase (9.8%) and a near 3-and-a-half minute improvement (7.8%) in 20km TT completion time. There were no significant group (HR vs. PM) x time (baseline vs. posttest) interactions for 20km TT completion time, LT power, or VO2max ratings. Our results coincide with the literature supporting the effectiveness of interval training for endurance athletes. Furthermore, our findings indicate that there is no empirical evidence for the superiority of any single type of device in the implementation of interval training. This study indicates that there are no noticeable advantages to using PM to increase performance in the average recreational cyclist, suggesting that low cost HR monitor are equally capable as training devices. Key pointsInterval training improves performance for recreational cyclists as measure by changes in lactate threshold watts and 20km time trial timeNo evidence of superiority of either heart monitor training and power meter trainingLow cost heart rate monitors are equally capable as training devices.
自行车间歇训练的技术进步使得心率(HR)监测器和功率计(PM)得以发展。尽管 PM 的使用越来越普及,但 PM 训练的优越性尚未得到证实。本研究的目的是调查基于 HR 和 PM 的间歇训练对休闲自行车手 20 公里计时赛(20km TT)、乳酸阈(LT)功率和最大有氧能力(VO2max)的相对有效性。参与者(n = 20;M 年龄= 33.9,SD = 13)完成了基线 20km TT,以确定他们的 VO2max 和 LT,然后随机分配到 HR 确定或 PM 确定的训练课程。在长达 5 周的时间里,参与者根据各自的间歇训练方法,在特定的 LT 下完成了 7.2(± 1.1)次间歇训练。重复测量方差分析(ANOVA)显示,基于 HR 和 PM 的训练组均显著提高了 LT 功率(F(1,16) = 28.,p < 0.01,eta(2) = 0.63)和 20km TT 时间(F(1,16) = 4.92,p = 0.04,eta(2) = 0.24)在测试后,20km TT 完成时间提高了 17 瓦(9.8%),近 3 分半钟(7.8%)。在 20km TT 完成时间、LT 功率或 VO2max 评级方面,组(HR 与 PM)x 时间(基线与测试后)之间没有显著的交互作用。我们的研究结果与支持间歇训练对耐力运动员有效性的文献相吻合。此外,我们的发现表明,在实施间歇训练方面,没有任何单一类型设备具有优势的经验证据。这项研究表明,对于普通休闲自行车手来说,使用 PM 来提高性能并没有明显的优势,这表明低成本的 HR 监测器同样可以作为训练设备。要点:间歇训练可提高休闲自行车手的表现,表现为乳酸阈瓦特和 20km 计时赛时间的变化没有证据表明心率监测器训练和功率计训练具有优越性低成本心率监测器同样可以作为训练设备