Guys - it's been a great read with some really usful information for me (the original poster).

I am now longer concerned about the peaks from what I have read. To the post that suggested I was carrying too much weight I was when I started 7 months ago but I'm not too bad now. 98 down to about 82 now I think.

I've also decided to have an excersice test done - bokked in to the quack for tomorrow morning.

Thanks again for all the feedback.

cheers
Michael

J-mat wrote, i responded with >>


Ric:

How do you know if I didn't get tested properly??? And what exactly don't I know???

>>i've no idea what you don't know! But, that isn't what i asked!


So what does it prove that you have tested rehab pt's who maxed out??? How do you know they were maxed out??? I know people who would quit at 1 or 2 mph on a treadmill, far from maxing out.

>>and?

You talk about motivational issues. Do you think a rider who pushes hard and is used to pain has more motivation than someone who's idea of work is going to the kitchen and opening a bag of chips???

>>i'm not sure of your point here? different people have different motivations and suffering levels. whilst we as athletes might not think a walk to the kitchen is much of a deal, it might be to some people.

Although heart rate isn't a foolproof measure of intensity, it is pretty good overall. It was good enough for Francesco Moser to set the hour record under the guidance of Dr. Conconi. Yes, the Conocni method that is so "outdated."

>>the conconi "method" is pretty much useless. there's no evidence to support it, and lots of evidence to refute it.

How many races and championships in running, cycling and swimming (let alone other endurance events)has training by heart rate produced in the last 15 years??? Too many!!!

>>i haven't for one minute said that this isn't the case. alternatively, why not for a minute think about this: when HR monitors were introduced how many riders had won the Tour de France using them? prior to that people would've used speedos, or stopwatch, or PE. However, times change and technology moves on, or you get left behind (e.g., Fignon v's Lemond 89 Tour de France).

>> don't bring in other sports (e.g., swimming and running) because, the greatest retarding forces (air drag or water) aren't as big as they are in cycling and thus speed is good predictor performance in these sports


5 time Tour de France winner L.A. trains by heart rate and cadence on the road, not watts.

>>which of course is why uses an SRM, as do many pros.


It's quite appropriate to use percentages of heart rate when talking about LT or other intensities. If it is so wrong to use heart rate, let some coach in todays "modern" world produce a new hour record holder than could hold the watts that Moser did for 60 minutes.

>>what the heck are you talking about? As far as i'm aware, the last time i looked at the UCI books Chris Boardman held the hour record. Indurain and Rominger also used SRMs. And, of course Moser used every bit of technical hardware he could get his hands on. at the time power meters weren't available. Maybe he'd have used one, had they been.

>>Peter Keen.


I don't think you will be seeing one anytime soon. Putting it on the line in front of the whole world to see is very different than holding watts in a lab.

The closer your LT is to VO2max the better. I never said LT is TT effort. Of course TT effort is higher. Using heart rate as a measure of lactate production can be as good as using a watt meter, especially when you consider the variations in a riders threshold due to sleep, nutrition, overtraining, etc.

>>you can't use a HR monitor as a measure of lactate production

There are plenty of real world examples that shows max heart rate can go in either direction. If it does come down, usually in elite riders, it is typically the result of increased parasympathetic stimulation (overtraining), which causes the heart to beat slower at max hr.

Why would I care about getting tested in a lab for max hr??? You seem to think the only place you can determine max hr is in a lab, which is of course, not true. It's so variable anyway that many max efforts over weeks, months, or longer are needed to determine the typical max value.

>>i'm not against field testing -- i did mention this. i have nothing against it. field testing with a power meter is great too. i just said that you don't know if you fullfill specific criterion in a field test, which of course you don't.

Ric

__________________
http://www.cyclecoach.com

Ric:

First of all, this was originally about max heart rate, and I admit to digressing off topic somewhat.

First, the HRM/SRM/PT/technology issue. Times do change, but what is the end result??? Boardman is the current hour record holder using the "conventional bike" standard. If you read the accounts of his successful attempt, he was struggling to maintain the pace and only beat Merckx's record by 10 meters. 10 meters improvement in almost 30 years. Hats off to Chris Boardman, I think he was a fantastic rider, but surely technology is good for more than 10 meters, or is it???

It shows what a talent King Eddy really was!!! Merckx said he could hold the pace easily in training for several kilometers, but doing it for an hour was another thing altogether. He set the hour with "old fashioned" speedwork, which is as low-tech as it gets. I don't think he would let a piece of battery-operated equipment tell him what to do, as he was/is a humble and simple man who relied on hard training to be successful, not technology.

Moser was into technology, and Eddy lamented that for the first time in the history of the Hour, aerodynamics had won, not the man, when Moser finally set the new record. Disc wheels will make your bike faster, but a powermeter won't.

Even so, I mentioned Moser's old record because of his close association with Conconi. Moser trained under his guidance, and much of it was using the "Conconi" method that is supposedly such a failure. Moser put out impressive wattage for 60 minutes using these methods. If the Conconi method truly sucks, imagine what untouchable speeds Moser would have been able to attain with "proper" training!!!

Even with all sport science has to offer a rider, who today in the pro peloton is going to step up and beat Boardman's record??? Is anyone even talking about it??? Riding faster than 30 mph for an hour on a track is a very hard thing to do, and technology won't make it any less painful.

Fignon's long-haired hubris is what cost him the 1989 Tour. He knew better, but for some reason he thought there would be no way he could lose in Paris in yellow on the last day, even to a TT specialist like LeMond. If he would have worn a helmet and thown on a set of Scott bars, LeMond would have been unable to take enough time out of him to win. That's a tactical error, and one that Fignon and the world will never forget. Even so, Fignon will still go down in history as one of the world's best riders. Interestingly, LeMond's famous ride in Paris is still the fastest Tour TT (outside of prologues) in history.

I never suggested that a HRM can measure blood lactate, just that they can be useful as a relative measure of intensity. People probably think that I hate powermeters also. Not true. I'm geting a PT Pro soon, so I can't hate them too much. Watts are the definative measure of work a rider does, and of course it is better and absolute compared with speed or heart rate. That being said, watts still cannot negate the effectiveness of other training methods (speed, hr, etc.).

Armstrong does use a SRM on his rides, but Carmichael bases training tasks on heart rate not watts. The wattage data are analyzed later, post ride. The same with UK TT ace Stuart Dangerfield. His coach, Dr. Gordon Wright says his training is done on feel, and that powermeter data is only reviewed after the ride as well.

I'm not down on technology, I just don't like following "absolutes." There are lots of variation in people, and lots of variation in the methods they use to achieve fitness. Moser worked with Conconi, Obree trained himself on a mountain bike and a stationary trainer, etc. Sometimes, results are achieved that conflict with what "should be" according to a study or technology.

Curious about the Peter Keen reference. Was he in the same room with you when you posted???

__________________
Send comments, praise, or flames to:
jm_560@Hotmail.com

Jmat wrote, i responded >>

First of all, this was originally about max heart rate, and I admit to digressing off topic somewhat.

>>nature of the beast on internet forums. not a problem

First, the HRM/SRM/PT/technology issue. Times do change, but what is the end result??? Boardman is the current hour record holder using the "conventional bike" standard. If you read the accounts of his successful attempt, he was struggling to maintain the pace and only beat Merckx's record by 10 meters. 10 meters improvement in almost 30 years. Hats off to Chris Boardman, I think he was a fantastic rider, but surely technology is good for more than 10 meters, or is it???

>>there's several ways of looking at this. Merckx is often thought of as the best rider ever. I think Chris would admit he wasn't. Not comparing the same thing. On the other hand he still beat the record and that's all that matters.

>>also, you have to remember that Chris was at the end of his career when he set this record -- his power output was down 8% on the Superman record. Thus, he would've gone further when he was fitter.

>>finally, Merckx rode at altitude for an advantage. Although the partial pressure of oxygen would be decreased compared to sea level and thus, power would be reduced accordingly. the much lower air density offsets this, i.e., had merkcx done the ride at sea level, produced more power, he'd have travelled less distance


It shows what a talent King Eddy really was!!! Merckx said he could hold the pace easily in training for several kilometers, but doing it for an hour was another thing altogether. He set the hour with "old fashioned" speedwork, which is as low-tech as it gets. I don't think he would let a piece of battery-operated equipment tell him what to do, as he was/is a humble and simple man who relied on hard training to be successful, not technology.

>>merkcx used every *available* piece of technology that was available to him at the time. whether these worked or not is a mute point (e.g., drilled chainrings), whereas some did (i.e., setting the record at super high altitude -- that's similar to making the bike very aerodynamic).

Moser was into technology, and Eddy lamented that for the first time in the history of the Hour, aerodynamics had won, not the man, when Moser finally set the new record. Disc wheels will make your bike faster, but a powermeter won't.

>>but a power meter will help you train more objectively, and this will hopefully make fitter

Even so, I mentioned Moser's old record because of his close association with Conconi. Moser trained under his guidance, and much of it was using the "Conconi" method that is supposedly such a failure. Moser put out impressive wattage for 60 minutes using these methods. If the Conconi method truly sucks, imagine what untouchable speeds Moser would have been able to attain with "proper" training!!!

>>you're confusing things. I've no idea what conconi's training methods are, obviously it involves a bit more than some 'HR deflection point'. I said that the conconi method of HR deflection is useless. it's been discredited.

>>supposedly the deflection point allows you to determine where you can TT at (or where you go anaerobic or something similar). It's well understood and universally accepted that HR differs at a specific workload under different conditions. Power is always power, and thus that's how you can accurately determine specific criteria.



Even with all sport science has to offer a rider, who today in the pro peloton is going to step up and beat Boardman's record??? Is anyone even talking about it??? Riding faster than 30 mph for an hour on a track is a very hard thing to do, and technology won't make it any less painful.

>>i've never said that it would. it shows the great ride done by chris. chris used a stack of sport science to help him get the record

Fignon's long-haired hubris is what cost him the 1989 Tour. He knew better, but for some reason he thought there would be no way he could lose in Paris in yellow on the last day, even to a TT specialist like LeMond. If he would have worn a helmet and thown on a set of Scott bars, LeMond would have been unable to take enough time out of him to win. That's a tactical error, and one that Fignon and the world will never forget. Even so, Fignon will still go down in history as one of the world's best riders. Interestingly, LeMond's famous ride in Paris is still the fastest Tour TT (outside of prologues) in history.

>>i'm not sure what point you're trying to make. This is what i said -- use technology or you'll get left behind


I never suggested that a HRM can measure blood lactate, just that they can be useful as a relative measure of intensity. People probably think that I hate powermeters also. Not true. I'm geting a PT Pro soon, so I can't hate them too much. Watts are the definative measure of work a rider does, and of course it is better and absolute compared with speed or heart rate. That being said, watts still cannot negate the effectiveness of other training methods (speed, hr, etc.).

>>not sure what you're trying to say? how can speed and HR by effective measures when they vary under so many different conditions?



Armstrong does use a SRM on his rides, but Carmichael bases training tasks on heart rate not watts. The wattage data are analyzed later, post ride. The same with UK TT ace Stuart Dangerfield. His coach, Dr. Gordon Wright says his training is done on feel, and that powermeter data is only reviewed after the ride as well.

>>and loads of pro's use srm or power tap to prescribe the intensity. however, i've also heard that LA uses power to prescribe intensity.


I'm not down on technology, I just don't like following "absolutes."

>>so, why get a power meter? or would you rather just do what you want and ignore objective measures?


There are lots of variation in people, and lots of variation in the methods they use to achieve fitness. Moser worked with Conconi, Obree trained himself on a mountain bike and a stationary trainer, etc. Sometimes, results are achieved that conflict with what "should be" according to a study or technology.

>>moser, obree, conconi they all used technology in their own way. for the two riders, power meters weren't readily available when they were racing.

>>now, if you look at the big teams, most of the riders use power meters. i've even got stacks of data from world class races!


Curious about the Peter Keen reference. Was he in the same room with you when you posted???

>>Lol! No! Peter uses power meters for coaching his riders. if you look at the UK WCPP team, you'll see that the virtually all the riders have SRMs for both training and racing

Ric

__________________
http://www.cyclecoach.com

Ric:

It's too bad the "conventional bike" standard was not in place when everyone was setting the hour in the 90's. We could have truly seen what those riders were capable of. There should also be a standard venue as well. Then, it would truly come down to the rider.

A powermeter is the most objective measurement of work, that's why I'm getting one. You know for sure what you are capable of, but as I said before, you can still get good results without one, only it's harder to quantify progress. My point was Eddy didn't have access to one and Chris did, but he still only went 10 meters more. Again, the UCI needs to get one format, one standard for all hour records, so we can't say it was air density that made the record.

Conconi's method showed a strong correlation between 4mm of lactate and the point in which the line deflects. It's a relatively accurate, bloodless test. Take it for what it's worth.

Regarding Merckx's hour, during the year he raced a full schedule, and won 50 races before his successful hour attempt including a 5th Milan-San-Remo, a 3rd L-B-L, a 3rd Fleche Wallone, a 2nd Tour of Lombardy, a 3rd Tour of Italy, and a 4th Tour de France!!! No pro today would never consider such a hard schedule, let alone be victorious in such top races!!! A man truly deserving of the title "King."

__________________
Send comments, praise, or flames to:
jm_560@Hotmail.com

J-MAT wrote, i replied >>

>>i'm not disagreeing as such with anything you wrote there --although i quite like the idea of moving on with technology and having a 'better' bike -- i'm sure others including yourself probably do to, e.g., STI levers, clipless pedals, aero wheels, etc.

Conconi's method showed a strong correlation between 4mm of lactate and the point in which the line deflects. It's a relatively accurate, bloodless test. Take it for what it's worth.

>>this is my point. It *doesn't*. there's been considerable conjecture on how the results were obtained, and 4 mmol/L is just an arbitrary figure known as OBLA. If you read the primary literature, you'll find that the conconi work has been discredited.

Ric

__________________
http://www.cyclecoach.com

Ric:

The problem with improved fitness is that with a good program, thresholds shift to higher pr's regulary (hopefully), making any testing good for a short period of time, maybe a few weeks to few months.

Nothing is more accurate than a blood lactate test, but If you don't have access to that, the Conconi method can be accurate. At least it was for me. I tried it myself on an ergometer when I was in school and it corresponded fairly well with my actual TT threshold.

like I said, take it for what it's worth. Today, I wouldn't bother with either test. After you have been riding for a while, you can get a good feel for lactate accumulation anyway, and accurately gauge how hard you can push for 20-30-60 minutes.

BTW, I do enjoy my STI levers and clipless pedals!!!

__________________
Send comments, praise, or flames to:
jm_560@Hotmail.com