"warren" <
[email protected]> wrote in message
news:221020032237483246%[email protected]...
> In article <
[email protected]>, Andy Coggan
> <
[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > "warren" <
[email protected]> wrote in message
> >
news:221020031853000725%[email protected]...
> > > In article <1066869221.682151@ns>, Stewart Fleming
<
[email protected]>
> > > wrote:
>
> > > 2 bpm isn't enough to worry about. Look harder at differences of
5+bpm.
> > > The user should also be aware of the factors that can cause HR to vary and they can make
> > > adjustments accordingly. For example, if your HR is
5
> > > bpm high for a given power and it's hot, it's reasonable to back off the power and train at
> > > the "normal" HR for that effort.
> >
> > And what evidence is there that this is what you should do?
>
> Training in hot conditions adds stress.
And yet you need to train in the heat to acclimatize to it (passive exposure doesn't induce
significant adaptation). So while you're backing way off because your HR is a little elevated, other
people are gaining an advantage over you.
> > > > > I am surprised that anyone would debate this. It seems to clear
and
> > obvious
> > > > > to me. Maybe I am not explaining it clearly?
> > >
> > > Nah. Just personal bias
> >
> > Try "better insight into the physiology of exercise, garnered through
years
> > of measuring power, VO2, HR, etc., under controlled laboratory
conditions".
>
> No mention of all the professionals who get paid to know how to help their riders go as fast as
> possible who disagree with your limited view of training in the real world of bike racing at the
> highest levels?
>
> > > and infatuation with something new.
> >
> > Wrong - skepticism about the value of HR monitors/monitoring predates
the
> > widespread availability of powermeters. For example, see the comments of Drs. Coyle, Maughan,
> > Daniels, etc., in this article:
> >
> >
http://www.gssiweb.com/reflib/refs/55/d0000000200000047.cfm?pid=96
> >
> > (Also note that the single hold-out was the late Dr. Ed Burke...thus reinforcing my point that
> > it is only in the cycling world that HR holds
such
> > sway.)
>
> Not surprising since HRM's are more applicable to cycling than track and field, swimming, most
> flat running events, etc., where conditions are very controlled, precisely measured, easily
> repeatable, and most of the events are short. And as we all know, HRM's aren't as useful for short
> events nor for most of the training for short efforts.
>
> From the article you referenced...
>
> Daniels says : "It would depend on the sport in which the athlete was participating. In situations
> when velocity of movement is not easily controlled, or when undulating terrain or adverse weather
> conditions may be a factor, heart rate monitors may be useful."
>
> Sounds like cycling to me. IOW, he thinks HRM's could be useful for cycling.
Which is pretty much what I wrote in the introduction to my chapter for USAC. But, my point is that
of the three well-respected exercise scientists and the one well-respected science writer who
participated in the roundtable, only the individual associated with cycling came out strongly in
favor of HR monitors/monitoring.
>
> Coyle says: "I'd tell an athlete to use it as a motivational tool when they train hard, or as a
> means of preventing overtraining during periods when they are supposed to be taking it easy. The
> heart-rate monitor is like a coach that keeps you on track. Most athletes who train by themselves
> tend to train too hard when they should be taking it easy, or they train too easy when they should
> be pushing it a bit more. Heart-rate monitors, like coaches, can be more objective than the
> athlete in assessing whether the objective of training is being met."
Coggan says (w/ apologies to Eddie for stealing his words) "I tell athletes to use it as a
motivational tool when they train hard, or as a means of preventing overtraining during periods when
they are supposed to be taking it easy. The powermeter is like a coach that keeps you on track. Most
athletes who train by themselves tend to train too hard when they should be taking it easy, or they
train too easy when they should be pushing it a bit more. Powermeters, like coaches, can be more
objective than the athlete in assessing whether the objective of training is being met."
> Sounds like he sees some use for HRM's.
Big difference between "some use" and Harnish's claim that it would be "foolish" to not measure HR.
> Maughan says: "The experienced athlete has probably learned to monitor his body's internal cues,
> and will not be as likely to benefit by using a heart rate monitor. Nevertheless, one can not
> discount the fact that requiring an athlete to assess and record daily training heart rates can
> give a coach insights into the athlete's response to a training session, as well as confirmation
> that the athlete actually carried out the exercise session."
Coggan says (this time with apologies to Ron): "The experienced athlete has probably learned to
monitor his or her body's internal cues, and will not be as likely to benefit by using a powermeter.
Nevertheless, one can not discount the fact that requiring an athlete to assess and record daily
training power output can give a coach insights into the athlete's response to a training session,
as well as confirmation that the athlete actually carried out the exercise session."
> More agreement from one of your "skeptics".
I said skepticism, not skeptics. Anybody who takes time to read the whole article, rather than just
the parts you've chosen to quote, will see that Coyle, Maughan, and Daniels expressed the same sorts
of reservations with regard to HR monitoring that I do.
> And among Burke's many comments in favor of using an HRM... "By monitoring heart rate accurately,
> an athlete can get more benefit out of the time spent training. The three most important variables
> in designing a training program are frequency, time, and intensity of training. The first two
> factors are easy to monitor, but intensity of training may be difficult to gauge. Recording
> training heart rate in a daily log can help to quantify this important training variable."
And among Coggan's many comments in favor of using an HRM (with apologies to Ed) "By monitoring
power output directly, an athlete can get more benefit out of the time spent training. The three
most important variables in designing a training program are frequency, time, and intensity of
training. The first two factors are easy to monitor, but intensity of training may be difficult to
gauge. Recording power output while training in a daily log can help to quantify this important
training variable."
> Pretty much what many experts in the field of cycling training already know from experience.
As Charles Howe like to emphasize, if you know power and perceived effort, then measuring HR is
practically redundant.
> > > > You could gather qualitative data (good/bad/indifferent) by
measuring
> > > > subject response on a scale of perceived effort/exertion and monitor that at intervals
> > > > during the session.
> > >
> > > And how will an athlete record this PE throughout their daily training sessions on a
> > > measurement scale that is consistent from day to day and month to month?
> >
> > That's simple: use the Borg scale. It works just as well as using HR -
for
> > example, see:
> >
> >
> >
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids
> > =14523315&dopt=Abstract
>
> It's still just a *subjective* estimate by the person doing the effort,
The fact that it is subjective is actually part of its benefit: regardless of what any objective
measurements might be telling you, if you feel bad, you feel bad. But in any case, contrary to your
attempt to imply that perceived effort is inaccurate, numerous studies have shown that even
untrained individuals are capable of judging their effort quite accurately, given an appropriate
scale and some brief instructions.
> and no means of recording each of these estimates with each effort. One of your "skeptics" already
> explained how the HRM could be used for more accuracy.
No one said anything in that roundtable discussion about HR monitoring vs. perceived exertion
measurements.
> > > How much does the LTHR of a trained person change during the season? 3-5 bpm? Small target.
> > > How much does the LT power of a trained person change during the season? 30-80 watts? Wide
> > > target.
> >
> > If you prescribing training based on outdated information (either power
or
> > HR), then you're making a mistake, period.
>
> It's not an *OR* choice. Power and HR can be used together for greatest benefit.
And again I ask: if I know my power and perceived effort, what additional valuable information do I
obtain by also measuring HR? Neither you nor Mr. Harnish (who considers not measuring HR alongside
of power to be "foolish") have even begun to address that question.
Andy Coggan
