RPE (+HR?) vs Power for TTs - Page 5

Believe it or not, I've heard of a moron (a cat 1 actually) dropping out of a race because his HR was "too high" whatever that means. Not that they were suffering at all.

I think what Rap's trying to say is that HR would lead you in the wrong direction if you try and follow it without realizing its limitations.

And how is it that you find the limitations for wattage? At one point or another, there has to be a comparison to HR. Following wattage without realizing your limitations will likely get you to the same problem. Push to hard without knowing your limitations, and you will suffer.

__________________
-------
"Was" 39 year old guy Blood pressure: 143/84, Resting Pulse: 68, weight: 230
"summer 2004" 40 year old guy. Blood pressure: 121/66, Resting pulse: 45, weight: 175
1-1-2005 Blood pressure: 115/55, Resting pulse: 44, weight: 170
6-1-2005 Blood pressure: 105/52, resting pulse: 40, weight: 175
40k-TT, 1:05

I tried to. Actually, it was kind of fun. We had our gear lengths memorized (wasn't all that hard -- there were only 10 of them, 2 of which were never used because of the chain crossover). Everything was based on cadence, which you computed by counting strokes for 6 secs and multiplying by 10. So, if you wanted to know how fast you were going, you glanced down to see what gear you were in, computed your cadence and derived the speed. TT pacing was all about trying to maintain bike speed. Obviously, we didn't know our HR, which was probably a good thing because I might have gotten off my bike and walked a couple of times if I had known how high my HR was. Ignorance is sometimes a good thing.

The best way is to do a 40K TT (aka 1 hr MP) at your maximum average power, which usually requires a few efforts. You can either start a little low and step it up a bit each time until you find you can't hold that power for an hour. Or, you can go a little high and if you can't hold it you drop it back a little. But, the 40K TT MP is correlated with other MPs along the power/duration curve, so you can get a pretty good fix (e.g., +/- 2%) with shorter durations (e.g., 20K MP or even 10 min MP).

There is a loose relationship between power and HR, but I mean real loose. The key point is that you determine your maximum sustainable power for any duration by doing a max power test at that duration. Average HR over the duration is somewhat interesting to know but is not the basis for the maximum sustainable power and is not the basis for managing power on a ride. Frankly, with a PM the HRM is pretty useless. On my test ride today I didn't check my HRM once during the ride, only afterwards in the post-ride analysis -- just for you, Stormer! BTW, my PT has three display windows. I ride with current watts, current speed and current cadence in the three display windows. Guess how often I check HR on a ride, any ride? You guessed it -- zero!

Note the difference in what you wrote vs. what I wrote. I wrote about "its" limitations (HR) and you wrote about "your" limitations. Perhaps you didn't do that on purpose, but your distinction is very correct.

Just to be clear, in an RR or Crit or whatever, unless you're on a solo break, climbing a mountain or pulling at the front, the PM's main use is post hoc analysis. There's just no need to look at the display. Either you can hang or you can't.

What do you mean by "At one point or another, there has to be a comparison to HR"? Why does there have to be a comparison? HR is simply telling you how fast your heart is beating. Power is showing you your rate of work - big difference.

Yes, that is what I'm saying (or trying to say).

I couldn't agree more. You don't need any computer information because you're not managing output -- the pack is. In a TT, you're the pilot and you have full control of the throttle.

HOLY CRAP, he wasn't kidding about the slide rule

__________________
-------
"Was" 39 year old guy Blood pressure: 143/84, Resting Pulse: 68, weight: 230
"summer 2004" 40 year old guy. Blood pressure: 121/66, Resting pulse: 45, weight: 175
1-1-2005 Blood pressure: 115/55, Resting pulse: 44, weight: 170
6-1-2005 Blood pressure: 105/52, resting pulse: 40, weight: 175
40k-TT, 1:05

I agree with the RR or crit thoughts. You go as fast as you need to go, until you can't hang or you find out your more fit, or a better tactician.

That said, however, in a TT you may have control of the throttle, but you are basically 99% wide open the whole time. If you're not, somebody else will be. I don't think I'm gonna do well if I go out and decide to just knock down 80% efforts (you may be in control, but you're really not). And by wide open, I mean the highest sustainable effort you can muster for the time required. Wide open is wide open. I can see the pluses for watts if you feel you don't have a handle on yourself. "watch the meter, don't exceed this number".

__________________
-------
"Was" 39 year old guy Blood pressure: 143/84, Resting Pulse: 68, weight: 230
"summer 2004" 40 year old guy. Blood pressure: 121/66, Resting pulse: 45, weight: 175
1-1-2005 Blood pressure: 115/55, Resting pulse: 44, weight: 170
6-1-2005 Blood pressure: 105/52, resting pulse: 40, weight: 175
40k-TT, 1:05

edit, double post, ignore.

__________________
-------
"Was" 39 year old guy Blood pressure: 143/84, Resting Pulse: 68, weight: 230
"summer 2004" 40 year old guy. Blood pressure: 121/66, Resting pulse: 45, weight: 175
1-1-2005 Blood pressure: 115/55, Resting pulse: 44, weight: 170
6-1-2005 Blood pressure: 105/52, resting pulse: 40, weight: 175
40k-TT, 1:05

The problem with this line of thinking is that there is substantial evidence that the best pacing strategy is a consistent effort in consistent conditions, or a well planned and executed variable power pacing strategy in variable conditions - winds and hills. Pacing off a perceived exertion of 99% wide open the whole time will actually lead to very high powers at the start, trailing off at the end, rather than a consistent effort. Pacing properly off power will lead to mind-blowing difficulty towards the end of your TT trying to hold the same power that felt easy at the start, but nonetheless you will have a consistent power output throughout.

To put it another way (bluntly):

You almost definitely don't have a handle on yourself. You just might not realise it yet.

Once you get your PM working, try this experiment:
1. Find a flat and relatively wind free circuit, or a consistent climb, that takes 20-60 minutes to complete.
2. Ride it as hard as you can with your PM on, but not displaying power, as fast as you can pacing off HR/RPE.
3. Go home, upload your power data and work out your average power for the effort.
4. When you are fully recovered, add 10 watts to the average power you recorded, and go ride the whole thing again in similar conditions, being careful to stick as close as possible to that number (avg power + 10). If you feel like you have something left 3/4 of the way through, feel free to add another 10 watts.
5. Report back here and tell us:
(i) Which effort felt easier
(ii) Which effort was faster
(iii) What you think of power

Forget everything I said. Powermeters are completely useless. For how much could I buy yours?

I think somebody else has dibs on tossing it in the river for me.

C'mon, I never said they were completely useless. I already justified the cost, just need to figure it into my program. But don't see it getting used but 1-2 times a week. (I should never have typed that, you watch, it'll come back to haunt me in a month when I finally figure out a use, relative to my situation).

__________________
-------
"Was" 39 year old guy Blood pressure: 143/84, Resting Pulse: 68, weight: 230
"summer 2004" 40 year old guy. Blood pressure: 121/66, Resting pulse: 45, weight: 175
1-1-2005 Blood pressure: 115/55, Resting pulse: 44, weight: 170
6-1-2005 Blood pressure: 105/52, resting pulse: 40, weight: 175
40k-TT, 1:05

Oh dear. I have just read a bunch of old posts on the topica wattage list and they seem to suggest that RPE is the best for variable pacing strategies as it is too complex to do anything else and riders naturally tend towards the best strategy. Could this be true?

(Edit - primarily looking for responses from Andy who wrote some of this stuff or other people who have read and considered the old VP posts on the topica list).

That may well be the case for very highly experienced TT specialists, especially on a well-known course. I don't think it's true for me (although I plan to test it), especially on a new or relatively unfamiliar course. The concept that a pre-planned VP strategy is too complex to implement on the bike is a concept that I disagree with and intend to prove. But, I understand the sentiment. I doubt there is a universal answer to this question. I think I know what I want to obtain my optimal performance -- give me a PM and give me a plan. But, the guy right behind me might prefer pure RPE, or speed, or the feel of the wind in his hair.