|
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, eta2 = 0.63) and 20km TT time (F(1,16) = 4.92, p = 0.04, eta2 = 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. |
