Prior to beginning the interval program, participants completed baseline testing that involved a 20km time trial (20km TT), an assessment of peak aerobic capacity (VO2max) and a lactate threshold test (LT). Before the study began, the purpose and protocol of the study were explained and informed consent was obtained. Chi-square analysis indicated that sex was evenly distributed across the groups (chi-square = 0.6, p > 0.05). Participants did not participate in any interval training 6 months prior to beginning the study and had been cycling recreationally for at least one year.
Neither group showed a significant change in weight with training (p > 0.05). 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 0.05). 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. 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. 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 (VO 2max) in recreational cyclists.
Despite the growing popularity of PM use, the superiority of PM-based training has not been established. Technological advances in interval training for cyclists have led to the development of both heart rate (HR) monitors and powermeters (PM).