Ergomo and Power Tap comparison



Status
Not open for further replies.
In article <[email protected]>, Nick Burns
<[email protected]> wrote:

> warren wrote:
>
> > Has anyone here advocated ignoring power for cycling? No.
>
> Is this one of the strangest threads or what?

Emotional stakes, and some people aren't training now.

> > Merely stating that HR tells us useful information and so does power. We don't need to choose
> > only one or the other, except for the fact that HR can be measured for far less cost than power
> > and a person could estimate power based on speed, % grade or elevation change. I don't need a
> > powermeter to tell me I'm consistently faster at 170bpm than I used to be and testing shows that
> > 170bpm +/- 2 is my threshold. Therefore, I don't *need* a powermeter to know I'm going faster at
> > my threshold. The powermeter is nice to have though and provides greater accuracy.
> >
> > -WG
>
> There are really a lot of great things you can come up with if your budget is umlimited.
>
> Still, on a budget I think a Polar 720 and a nice indoor interactive trainer come before the power
> meter. I love the idea of using sets of short intervals on a indoor trainer that is able to
> precisely control load based on power.

No habla "indoor training", but I got the 710 because I wanted downloadable data including altitude
and decent software, and because I wasn't sure if I'd make the jump (financially) to power data
collection. Then it was a smaller jump when I added power.

> Throwing away HR data though, I mean why?

Among the "innovators" it's no longer as fashionable as the magic of power. All hail power.

And the real problem for most cyclists isn't whether or not they collect power information, it's
that they don't bother to learn about reasonable training methods. Point the crusade in that
direction for greater immpact.

-WG
 
warren wrote:

> Has anyone here advocated ignoring power for cycling? No. Merely stating that HR tells us useful
> information and so does power. We don't

The original post in this part of the thread stated: (NickBurnsChrisMcReynolds 23/10/2003):
>Power meters do not replace HRMs. I would be foolish to track power without heart rate.

That is what we are debating in this portion of the thread, not whether HR data or power data are
exclusively the only useful measurements. I understand that. I haven't seen any clear statement that
shows me the utility of measuring HR just in case it is useful later (that's how I'm characterizing
NickBurnsChrisMcReynolds's position at present. I note in a previous post that you object to this
characterization, but since he has repeated that statement several times in posts, I see no other
interpretation.) If NickBurnsChrisMcReynolds can make good on his proposal to provide examples of
real-world scenarios where it would be foolish to ignore the useful information (his term; I'd use
"data") gained from using a HRM, I'd be interested.
 
Nick Burns wrote:

>>>It sounds like he might be starting too slow. There is not enough info though.
>>
>>Exactly :)
>
>
> Exactly what? Both?

"Exactly, there is not enough info with HR data for you to be able to make a recommendation." Now,
if I write:

Cyclist A produces 450W and does a 1000m effort in 1:10 with an average of 156 and a maximum of
178bpm and Cyclist B produces 350W and does a 1000m effort in 1:09 with an average of 168 and a max
of 185bpm.

Does the recommendation that you made earlier for cyclist A to improve aerodynamics change? Is it
still based on the power data or does the HR data add anything? If you answer is that you need more
HR data, then what data do you need? Resting HR, max HR, the full HR curve? Why?

(exclude the possibility that cyclist A did 500m, got off for a rest and then finished the effort -
that would certainly show up in the HR data...)

> OK< but that was not the premise at all! HR NEVER has value on its own. It is always related to
> other data.

But I gave you the same (limited) amount of data in both examples related to time for the same
effort. You made a recommendation for the first but for the second you said "not enough info".

> I agree. HR is still important. You can't make all of these general aguments "you can't measure
> everything" and then relate that back to HR unless you can show why anyone would not want to. The
> point of fact is that if you have the equipment, you may aas well use it and collect the data
> because once you fail to collect it, you can't undo that. If you do record it and there is nothing
> you change, so what? It becomes part of the archive and it may become valuable (in fact, I say it
> is valuable) as it becomes part of the aggregate data set.

This is a very long way from your opening statement that "I would be foolish not to record HR data".
How can you say that, with the implication that this data somehow has some value, when you have
recognized where there are common situations where HR data is not useful?

> I will see what I can do. Don't hold your breath.

Hypoxic training may have some value.
:)
STF
 
"Andy Coggan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "warren" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:281020031817384424%[email protected]...
>
> > Has anyone here advocated ignoring power for cycling? No. Merely stating that HR tells us useful
> > information and so does power.
>
> I hate to sound like a broken record, but what "useful information"
does HR
> provide if you already know power? So far, no one has provided any
specific
> and convincing examples. (Phil's myocarditis doesn't really count,
since 1)
> I don't think anybody is advocating collecting HR data to try to
diagnose
> significant pathologies, and 2) he should have realized something was
wrong
> when his perceived effort was disproportionately high for his power
output).

Myocarditis wasn't diagnosed and I did consider my incident atypical. Like I said, I took a week
off after being sick followed by two weeks of taking it easy. After the 4th week I realized
something was wrong but I thought I was just run down. Besides upping my training and then getting
sick, I had a few other stress raisers. These were the two most relevant abstracts to show up in a
pubmed search.

http://tinyurl.com/sta2 http://tinyurl.com/stbk

Phil Holman
 
Phil Holman wrote:
> Andy Coggan wrote:
>> (Phil's myocarditis doesn't really count,
>
> Myocarditis wasn't diagnosed

I think Andy was referring to Phil Stone.
 
"Stewart Fleming" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:1067398476.127447@ns...
>
> warren wrote:
>
> > Has anyone here advocated ignoring power for cycling? No. Merely stating that HR tells us useful
> > information and so does power. We don't
>
> The original post in this part of the thread stated: (NickBurnsChrisMcReynolds 23/10/2003):
> >Power meters do not replace HRMs. I would be foolish to track power without heart rate.
>
> That is what we are debating in this portion of the thread, not whether HR data or power data are
> exclusively the only useful measurements.

Both Warren and Chris seem to have a hard time staying "on point".

Andy Coggan
 
"Phil Holman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Andy Coggan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > "warren" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:281020031817384424%[email protected]...
> >
> > > Has anyone here advocated ignoring power for cycling? No. Merely stating that HR tells us
> > > useful information and so does power.
> >
> > I hate to sound like a broken record, but what "useful information"
> does HR
> > provide if you already know power? So far, no one has provided any
> specific
> > and convincing examples. (Phil's myocarditis doesn't really count,
> since 1)
> > I don't think anybody is advocating collecting HR data to try to
> diagnose
> > significant pathologies, and 2) he should have realized something was
> wrong
> > when his perceived effort was disproportionately high for his power
> output).
>
> Myocarditis wasn't diagnosed and I did consider my incident atypical. Like I said, I took a week
> off after being sick followed by two weeks of taking it easy. After the 4th week I realized
> something was wrong but I thought I was just run down. Besides upping my training and then getting
> sick, I had a few other stress raisers. These were the two most relevant abstracts to show up in a
> pubmed search.
>
> http://tinyurl.com/sta2 http://tinyurl.com/stbk

Relevant in what way - to your clinical problems, or to the more general question of the usefulness
of HR data when you know power? In point of fact, they don't really address either issue - no HR
monitor on the market does the sort of spectral analysis alluded to by Asker, and neither abstract
discusses the utility of HR monitoring in the presence of power measurements.

Andy Coggan
 
"Robert Chung" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> Phil Holman wrote:
> > Andy Coggan wrote:
> >> (Phil's myocarditis doesn't really count,
> >
> > Myocarditis wasn't diagnosed
>
> I think Andy was referring to Phil Stone.

No, I was taking a guess at what ailed Phil (Holman) - he stated that his medical problems began
when he continued to train hard after suffering from what potentially sounded like a bacterial
infection. Although rare, in some cases exercise in the context of an active infection can lead to
inflammation of the heart, i.e., myocarditis (although I'm not aware that this is associated with a
long-term blunted HR response to exercise).

In any case, he should have seen it coming when he couldn't produce his usual power levels at his
usual perceived effort...

Andy Coggan
 
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
> "warren" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:281020031817384424%[email protected]...
>
> > Has anyone here advocated ignoring power for cycling? No. Merely stating that HR tells us useful
> > information and so does power.
>
> I hate to sound like a broken record, but what "useful information" does HR provide if you already
> know power? So far, no one has provided any specific

Once you learn your own MHR, it helps you determine how close you are to your own limits, and
therefore how much you might be able to improve.

--
Dave Kerber Fight spam: remove the ns_ from the return address before replying!

REAL programmers write self-modifying code.
 
"Andy Coggan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Phil Holman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > "Andy Coggan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > > "warren" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > news:281020031817384424%[email protected]...
> > >
> > > > Has anyone here advocated ignoring power for cycling? No. Merely stating that HR tells us
> > > > useful information and so does power.
> > >
> > > I hate to sound like a broken record, but what "useful
information"
> > does HR
> > > provide if you already know power? So far, no one has provided any
> > specific
> > > and convincing examples. (Phil's myocarditis doesn't really count,
> > since 1)
> > > I don't think anybody is advocating collecting HR data to try to
> > diagnose
> > > significant pathologies, and 2) he should have realized something
was
> > wrong
> > > when his perceived effort was disproportionately high for his
power
> > output).
> >
> > Myocarditis wasn't diagnosed and I did consider my incident
atypical.
> > Like I said, I took a week off after being sick followed by two
weeks of
> > taking it easy. After the 4th week I realized something was wrong
but I
> > thought I was just run down. Besides upping my training and then
getting
> > sick, I had a few other stress raisers. These were the two most relevant abstracts to show up in
> > a pubmed search.
> >
> > http://tinyurl.com/sta2 http://tinyurl.com/stbk
>
> Relevant in what way - to your clinical problems, or to the more
general
> question of the usefulness of HR data when you know power?

Both, from a healthy conditioning aspect. I think adding HR to Power provides an additional
check. Quite possibly one doesn't need to do this unless there is a problem first. My actual
position on this whole issue is very moderate. I added my 2 cents when the other Phil posted
about his heart incident.

>In point of fact, they don't really address either issue - no HR monitor on the market
does
> the sort of spectral analysis alluded to by Asker, and neither
abstract
> discusses the utility of HR monitoring in the presence of power measurements.

Really......."The most powerful predictors of the performance response to the taper were training
induced changes in the HR-RPE relationship and decreases in HR for a given power output." If your
position is that HR monitors can be discarded if one uses power then I very mildly disagree.

Phil Holman
 
In article <[email protected]>, David Kerber <ns_dkerber@ns_ids.net> wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
> > "warren" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:281020031817384424%[email protected]...
> >
> > > Has anyone here advocated ignoring power for cycling? No. Merely stating that HR tells us
> > > useful information and so does power.
> >
> > I hate to sound like a broken record, but what "useful information" does HR provide if you
> > already know power? So far, no one has provided any specific
>
> Once you learn your own MHR, it helps you determine how close you are to your own limits, and
> therefore how much you might be able to improve.

Your "limits" aren't determined accurately by knowing your MHR. One important "limit" is your
lactate threshold and yours could be anywhere in the range of ~75-90% of MHR. Rather than worrying
too much about your MHR, do some testing to determine your LT and then base your training around
that number, i.e. exercise at 85-90% of LT HR for a certain benefit, exercise at 95-100% for a
different benefit, etc.

-WG
 
"Andy Coggan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Robert Chung" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Phil Holman wrote:
> > > Andy Coggan wrote:
> > >> (Phil's myocarditis doesn't really count,
> > >
> > > Myocarditis wasn't diagnosed
> >
> > I think Andy was referring to Phil Stone.
>
> No, I was taking a guess at what ailed Phil (Holman) - he stated that
his
> medical problems began when he continued to train hard after suffering
from
> what potentially sounded like a bacterial infection. Although rare, in
some
> cases exercise in the context of an active infection can lead to inflammation of the heart, i.e.,
> myocarditis (although I'm not aware
that
> this is associated with a long-term blunted HR response to exercise).

I'm interested to hear what you are aware of along these lines.

>
> In any case, he should have seen it coming when he couldn't produce
his
> usual power levels at his usual perceived effort...

That was during the 4th week. Your guesswork about the diagnosis is spilling over into the shoulda,
coulda, woulda of realization that something was wrong.

Phil Holman
 
> Once you learn your own MHR, it helps you determine how close you are to your own limits, and
> therefore how much you might be able to improve.

How so? Knowing your MHR is like knowing how many RPM's or even how fast your cars top speed is;
what does that tell you about fuel economy, acceleration or anything else? MHR is one of the most
useless pieces of info you can have.

In their overzelousness to argue about cycling, power and HR, I think everyone has failed to ask
Andy what is useful for running? Obviously, swimmers can use lap times fairly consistently for
training, but does the advent of the power meter and all we've learned mean that HR is completely
useless for all sports.

Chris

"Inquiring minds are hard to find..."
 
"Phil Holman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

>"The most powerful predictors of the performance response to the taper were training induced
>changes in the HR-RPE relationship and decreases in HR for a given power output." If your position
>is that HR monitors can be discarded if one uses power then I very mildly disagree.

The conclusion of that abstract seems to overlook the most obvious point of all, which is that the
most powerful predictor of performance is performance itself - IOW, from a practical (vs.
mechanistic) perspective, what difference does it make what HR does, as long as power is going up?

Andy Coggan
 
"Andy Coggan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Phil Holman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
> > "The most powerful predictors of the performance response
> > to the taper were training induced changes in the HR-RPE
relationship
> > and decreases in HR for a given power output." If your position is that HR monitors can be
> > discarded if one uses
power
> > then I very mildly disagree.
>
> The conclusion of that abstract seems to overlook the most obvious
point of
> all, which is that the most powerful predictor of performance is
performance
> itself - IOW, from a practical (vs. mechanistic) perspective, what difference does it make what HR
> does, as long as power is going up?

That doesn't make sense. A predictor is something that indicates a potential *before* actual
realization. In the tapering phase of a training program, it probably isn't wise to test at max
aerobic output whereas significantly lower HRs at previously recorded submax outputs is noteworthy.
My disagreement is with your absolute determination on this issue with no exceptions. I acknowledge
the limitations of HR but what you are saying doesn't sound totally convincing to me or apparently
some others.

Phil Holman
 
"chris" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> In their overzelousness to argue about cycling, power and HR, I think everyone has failed to ask
> Andy what is useful for running?

Perceived effort (for relatively unstructured training sessions) and time-vs.-distance (for
structured training sessions, i.e., intervals) are all that runners really need.

Andy Coggan
 
"Phil Holman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Andy Coggan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > "Phil Holman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> >
> > > "The most powerful predictors of the performance response
> > > to the taper were training induced changes in the HR-RPE
> relationship
> > > and decreases in HR for a given power output." If your position is that HR monitors can be
> > > discarded if one uses
> power
> > > then I very mildly disagree.
> >
> > The conclusion of that abstract seems to overlook the most obvious
> point of
> > all, which is that the most powerful predictor of performance is
> performance
> > itself - IOW, from a practical (vs. mechanistic) perspective, what difference does it make what
> > HR does, as long as power is going up?
>
> That doesn't make sense.

Sure it does - why try to predict something that you can measure directly?

>A predictor is something that indicates a potential *before* actual realization. In the tapering
>phase of a training program, it probably isn't wise to test at max aerobic output

Try telling that to Graham Obree, who set the hour record on his second attempt, the morning after
his first attempt that came up only a few hundred meters short. ;-)

But seriously: the one thing that should be maintained - or even increased - when tapering is
training intensity...training frequency and duration are what get reduced. So, if you want to know
if your taper is working, the quickest way to find out it to measure your power over an appropriate
duration, not mess around with HR/perceived effort calculations. Besides, why would anyone be so
interested in how well their taper was working prior to the event anyway? It's not like you really
make any adjustments during a 7-10 d period that would have any real impact on your ultimate
performance.

> whereas significantly lower HRs at previously recorded submax outputs is noteworthy.

Such changes would be indicative of a change in VO2max - but not in LT.

> My disagreement is with your absolute determination on this issue with no exceptions.

All it would take to convince me to change my position would be for someone to posit one - just one,
that's all I'm asking for! - example of where knowing HR in addition to power is so useful that to
not measure HR would be "foolish".

> I acknowledge the limitations of HR but what you are saying doesn't sound totally convincing to me
> or apparently some others.

Well, then I guess I'll have to keep trying to convince you, won't I?

Andy Coggan
 
"Andy Coggan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> "Phil Holman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
> >"The most powerful predictors of the performance response to the taper were training induced
> >changes in the HR-RPE relationship and decreases in HR for a given power output." If your
> >position is that HR monitors can be discarded if one uses power then I very mildly disagree.
>
> The conclusion of that abstract seems to overlook the most obvious point of all, which is that the
> most powerful predictor of performance is performance itself - IOW, from a practical (vs.
> mechanistic) perspective, what difference does it make what HR does, as long as power is going up?
>
> Andy Coggan

Exactly, so what does it matter how performance is measured, it's the method
used in producing the power that makes all the difference and the fastest time
in a 4k Pursuit has more to offer than any power expert can hope to improve on.
 
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
> > Once you learn your own MHR, it helps you determine how close you are to your own limits, and
> > therefore how much you might be able to improve.
>
> How so? Knowing your MHR is like knowing how many RPM's or even how fast your cars top speed is;
> what does that tell you about fuel economy, acceleration or anything else? MHR is one of the most
> useless pieces of info you can have.

No, it's not. Go to any running NG. They use percentages of their MHR to control the intensity of
their training (3 miles at 70% of mhr, etc), and to measure their conditioning level (how far/fast
they go at a given % of mhr).

The same kind of info is used by high level cycle racers as well.

> In their overzelousness to argue about cycling, power and HR, I think everyone has failed to ask
> Andy what is useful for running?

Go to rec.running and see how they use their HR.

> Obviously, swimmers can use lap times fairly consistently for training, but does the advent of the
> power meter and all we've learned mean that HR is completely useless for all sports.

--
Dave Kerber Fight spam: remove the ns_ from the return address before replying!

REAL programmers write self-modifying code.
 
"David Kerber" <ns_dkerber@ns_ids.net> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
> > > Once you learn your own MHR, it helps you determine how close you
are
> > > to your own limits, and therefore how much you might be able to improve.
> >
> > How so? Knowing your MHR is like knowing how many RPM's or even how fast your cars top speed is;
> > what does that tell you about fuel economy, acceleration or anything else? MHR is one of the
> > most useless pieces of info you can have.
>
> No, it's not. Go to any running NG. They use percentages of their MHR to control the intensity of
> their training (3 miles at 70% of mhr, etc), and to measure their conditioning level (how far/fast
> they go at a given % of mhr).
>
> The same kind of info is used by high level cycle racers as well.
>
> > In their overzelousness to argue about cycling, power and HR, I
think
> > everyone has failed to ask Andy what is useful for running?
>
> Go to rec.running and see how they use their HR.

The issue isn't the fact that runners use HR monitoring. It's, is HR monitoring really necessary.

Phil Holman
 
Status
Not open for further replies.