What did the study do?
The study took place in Alicante, Spain, and they recruited riders from local clubs. They randomized riders with average 13 years training experience to HRV guided training (N=9) or to “traditional periodized training” (N=8). They first assessed riders, then gave all of them the same 4 weeks of “base training” with 3 weeks of increasing load and a recovery week. then another week of assessment. then the groups were split and 8 weeks of “intervention” HRV-guided or traditional training began, after which there was another assessment.
What were the study results?
- the group randomized to HRV guided training performed an average 30 minutes extra training during the intervention; % in zones was similar
- the HRV-guided group started with higher peak power, power at ventilatory thresholds and power during 40min TT compared to the traditional training group (by chance)
- both groups improved on these variables during the 8 week training cycle
- although the researchers observed a higher increase of peak power and power during 40min TT in the HRV-guided group, and a larger increase of power at VT2 in the traditional group, these differences between the groups were not significant (they could be due to chance). The key sentence (EW = evaluation week, PRE = baseline, MID = after base period):
For all the variables measured during EW (VO2max, PPO, WVT1, WVT2, and 40TT), there were no differences between groups in PRE, MID, and POST.
The key figure from the article, % change in power during 40min TT
In my point of view the authors over-interpret their results and suggest conclusions that are not supported by the data.
Rather cool is that most people who are already training for 13 years have a 5% increase in 40min TT performance after 8 weeks, irrespective of how they train!