Ergomo and Power Tap comparison

[Sam]

As someone who has spent more time running than cycling and coaches a few runners, I will say that
many runners might use HR and %HRmax and that many run into problems. I prefer the athletes I coach
not to use the HRM and go by time and RPE (or attempt to maintain a given pace for specific
workouts). I have seen my own HR increase significantly (>10bpm, not perhaps sig in a stat sense)
while maintaining the same pace. Cardiac drift perhaps, but if I want the training stimulus, do I
really slow down? Those who are slaves to HR face the same problem.

Also, it is imperative that one get a good indicator of HRmax and that often is problematic. Add in
the tendency for HRmax to decrease with endurance training and you get problems.

Also, a reduced HR at a given intensity is not always a sign of better fitness since overtraining
can also induce such a change.

Call me a Luddite (as Andy hears me call myself from time to time) and give me RPE for runners since
there is not a way to measure power yet in runners. For cyclists, give me power and RPE and I would
argue that a good training plan based on RPE is better than just gathering power data without
knowing how to use it or combining it with a poorly designed training program.

"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.
>
> > 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.

 

[Andy Coggan]

"David Kerber" <ns_dkerber@ns_ids.net> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> 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.

Really? I did not know that.

Andy Coggan

 

[Warren]

In article <[email protected]>, Sam
<[email protected]> wrote:

> As someone who has spent more time running than cycling and coaches a few runners, I will say that
> many runners might use HR and %HRmax and that many run into problems. ... Also, it is imperative
> that one get a good indicator of HRmax and that often is problematic. Add in the tendency for
> HRmax to decrease with endurance training and you get problems.

Why would you care about MHR when you can use the more useful HR at LT or HR at VO2max?

> For cyclists, give me power and RPE and I would argue that a good training plan based on RPE is
> better than just gathering power data without knowing how to use it or combining it with a poorly
> designed training program.

I think I said this yesterday. HR, Power, PE, NHR, LT don't mean much if the training plan
is no good.

-WG

 

[Warren]

In article <[email protected]>, Andy Coggan
<[email protected]> wrote:

> "David Kerber" <ns_dkerber@ns_ids.net> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > 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.
>
> Really? I did not know that.

Yes, you can learn all kinds of stuff in a running newsgroup. The really smart guys there have stuff
published in Runner's World magazine so you know it's good.

-WG

 

[Warren]

In article <[email protected]>, Andy Coggan
<[email protected]> wrote:

> 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.

There are so many things wrong about what you said above I don't know where to start. So I
won't. Carry on.

-WG

 

[Chris]

I guess you can't believe everything you read. I can say two things, though:

1. I've talked with more than my fair share of runners (of all levels) and they seem to me to be
some of the most poorly educated athletes out there. This is not to say they are dumb, just
reliant on running magazines. A few years back, Jack Daniels was seen as a leader in run
training, but I haven't heard much lately. Perhaps runner should habg out here more and listen to
Andy...hey, they could even listen to me!

2. Relying on MHR is worthless. As I already tried to explain, there is so much variability in MHR
and sub max HR's that a percentage is vague at best. While I still see value in HR, I would not
be able to measure anything worthwhile based on any percentage.

Take two runners, age 28 with 5 years training:

A: MHR = 205, threshold at 170 (82%)and endurance HR at 165
B: MHR = 180, threshold at 170 (94%)and endurance HR at 160 Look at the disparity between runners.
What if they have the same MHR, but different threshold HR's, how is a strict HR % usable?

The problem is that HR is too variable on many levels. To base HR zones on a HR (or HR test) only
magnifies the problem.

> 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.

 

[Andy Coggan]

"warren" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:291020031832166105%[email protected]...

> Why would you care about MHR when you can use the more useful HR at LT or HR at VO2max?

The cardiovascular Fick equation:

VO2 = heart rate x stroke volume x arteriovenous O2 difference

This equation holds during maximal as well as submaximal exercise - ergo, maximum heart rate is the
heart rate at VO2max (or to state it another way: VO2max occurs at maximal heart rate).

Andy Coggan

 

[Kurgan Gringion]

"warren" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:291020031854487432%[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>, Andy Coggan
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > "David Kerber" <ns_dkerber@ns_ids.net> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > > 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.
> >
> > Really? I did not know that.
>
>
> Yes, you can learn all kinds of stuff in a running newsgroup. The really smart guys there have
> stuff published in Runner's World magazine so you know it's good.

Dumbass -

I'll bet Runner's World isn't as good as Bicycling magazine.

 

[Andy Coggan]

"warren" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:291020031834062768%[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>, Andy Coggan
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
> There are so many things wrong about what you said above I don't know where to start. So I won't.
> Carry on.

Okay, I will (review articles only):

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12840640&dop-
t=Abstract

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12076176&dop-
t=Abstract

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=9839839&dopt=Abstract

Andy Coggan

 

[Nick Burns]

"Stewart Fleming" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:1067399786.605984@ns...
>
>
> 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?

There is not enough info. It was a quick guess because I got my toe stuck in your trap.

> (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".

Look, if you have a point to make, make it.

> > 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?

No, I do not think so. It would be foolish to not record HR.

>
> > I will see what I can do. Don't hold your breath.
>
> Hypoxic training may have some value.
>
> STF

Yeah, they look like fun. FWIW, I did take a stab at searching for an article a wrote a few years
ago. No luck yet.

 

[Warren]

In article <7X%[email protected]>, Andy Coggan
<[email protected]> wrote:

> "warren" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:291020031834062768%[email protected]...
> > In article <[email protected]>, Andy Coggan
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > > 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.
> >
> > There are so many things wrong about what you said above I don't know where to start. So I
> > won't. Carry on.
>
> Okay, I will (review articles only):
>
>
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids
> =12840640&dopt=Abstract
>
>
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids
> =12076176&dopt=Abstract
>
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=9839839&dopt=-
> Abstract

All three of those abstracts offer suggestions that are so vague they're almost meaningless, and
they do not mention or support several of the things you mentioned above. You really should get out
of the library and talk to some *good* coaches-not about what works for you or for 40K TT's, but
what works best for a variety of people training for a variety of events.

> 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.

Why reduce frequency? Or how about two smaller sessions in a day instead of one session? No mention
of change in neuromuscular training? What about increasing cadence to mantain some stress on the
cardiovascular system while minimizing the stress on muscles to reduce fatigue? What about doing
certain training efforts on the flat or with a tailwind instead of on hills? Or maintaining the
frequency and duration of efforts that are primarily supplied by the creatine-phosphate energy
system right up until 2-3 days to go?

> 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.

IME that's too vague and partly wrong too. Feeling "sharp, quick, energetic" are useful references
for how a taper is working, particularly as your taper affects your speed and mental approach, and I
don't mean your 40K TT speed either. A HR that responds rapidly has been a good indicator, speed of
HR recovery after efforts or training sessions is good too. Many people have done very well with
their tapering without use of a power meter-believe it or not.

> 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.

That's a statement that is constantly proven wrong by those who do it for a living. What you do,
including certain small changes in those last 7-10 days is very important for peaking. Too many to
bother listing.

-WG

 

[Warren]

In article <[email protected]>, Nick Burns
<[email protected]> wrote:

> "Stewart Fleming" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:1067399786.605984@ns...
> >
> >
> > Nick Burns wrote:

> > 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?
>
> There is not enough info. It was a quick guess because I got my toe stuck in your trap.

Hello, Stewart! We've both already said HR isn't very useful for events as short as a minute
although the maximum HR could be of interest. You'll find that people training for kilos use lap
times and partial lap times to gauge or measure their effort, not power. Can you look at a power
curve and tell us how long it took to cover the first 100 meters, first 300 meters, or 1000 meters?

For longer TT's on the track HR and power become more useful but lap times still tell the more
important story, not power, and you know what, power doesn't matter really, it's how quickly you get
to the end of the race, and that is best measured with a watch and lap counter. Perhaps you can come
up with some examples where power measurements are actually useful?

> > 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?
>
> No, I do not think so. It would be foolish to not record HR.

There are some cases where HR isn't useful (and the same goes for power), but those are not "common
situations".

-WG

 

[Ryan Cousineau]

In article <291020032213193451%[email protected]>, warren <[email protected]> wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>, Nick Burns
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > "Stewart Fleming" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:1067399786.605984@ns...
> > >
> > >
> > > Nick Burns wrote:
>
> > > 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?
> >
> > There is not enough info. It was a quick guess because I got my toe stuck in your trap.
>
> Hello, Stewart! We've both already said HR isn't very useful for events as short as a minute
> although the maximum HR could be of interest. You'll find that people training for kilos use
> lap times and partial lap times to gauge or measure their effort, not power. Can you look at a
> power curve and tell us how long it took to cover the first 100 meters, first 300 meters, or
> 1000 meters?

> For longer TT's on the track HR and power become more useful but lap times still tell the more
> important story, not power, and you know what, power doesn't matter really, it's how quickly you
> get to the end of the race, and that is best measured with a watch and lap counter. Perhaps you
> can come up with some examples where power measurements are actually useful?

Are you thinking on-track only? Because the great glory of track racing is its repeatability. Every
run on a particular track is pretty much the same: same elevation, usually similar wind conditions
(especially for indoor tracks), and _no_ climbing.

That last one is especially important in comparing relative performance over different courses. You
have to compensate for changing aero position too, but in most serious riders that changes very
little from ride to ride (unless they're specifically adjusting their body position), while the
course may change a lot.

Not only that, but a power meter is much better at giving you instantaneous reads of performance
over a course. You may not know your usual splits every 500 m on your favourite 20 km TT practice
course, but you can see whether your power is higher or lower than usual at any moment.

> > > 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?
> >
> > No, I do not think so. It would be foolish to not record HR.
>
> There are some cases where HR isn't useful (and the same goes for power), but those are not
> "common situations".

For cheap riders like me, HR is usefully cheap. I'm starting to get into keeping track of times over
a set course for long-term performance logging, but I'm definitely not going to spend several
hundred dollars on a power-measuring system. My HRM/cyclocomputer cost about $80. It seems useful
for telling me things like when I'm pushing harder than usual (HR above my usual goal range), when
I'm showing signs of fatigue (HR won't go very high despite high effort), and for letting me know
when I'm warmed up. Perceived effort and speed can tell you a lot of these things, but HR puts a
measured number on this stuff.

HR is not perfect, and power is better (splits are great, but only if you're running a measured
course, and preferably a short one; Lance named his new bike "Madone" after his favourite test hill
TT), but HR is pretty good on the multivariate chart of price, utility, and convenience.

Bringing a smile to rbr,
--
Ryan Cousineau, [email protected] http://www.sfu.ca/~rcousine President, Fabrizio Mazzoleni Fan Club

 

[Phil]

I thought this thread had died off ages ago!

Ok Andrew I shall tell you why & how I find HR useful during a hectic racing season in Belgium which
is mixed with working full time (9pm-5am!). This is an example. (so you don't need to preach there
are no examples)

First a few facts gathered from my vast database of Kermes races & myself ,!

1st thing I've never got a single result in the 1st 15 here with a "in race max HR below 180bpm."
2nd thing I've never been out of the results when Im in form when Im able to reach a "in race Max HR
above 180bpm."

What does HR tell me here ? well it tells me how my form is post race. If I get shelled in a race my
HR is ALWAYS below 180bpm when Im in form.

Say its September & close to the end of a tough year racing ......I work my 8hrs , sleep 6hrs go to
race & get shelled I want to know why I was shelled, was I just fatigued from work? or has my form
finally gone pair shaped ?

One quick easy look at HR data tells me all I need to know where Power tells me bugger all (say in
this case HR was low, then I know that all I need is a good nights sleep & I will be back to
normal!) If I had been shelled with a high max HR that was above 180bpm well then I know that the
form has gone to pot & I need an extended break.

You have argued in the past that you can feel the difference, but I have thought long & hard over
this & if you can feel a difference whilst getting shelled its a very vague difference, HR data here
has never failed me. Think about how it feels to get shelled "Your on the edge of the road breathing
at max, legs filling with acid until something deep inside tells you to save your self".

HR data rules if you really know your heart.

The other thing that's great about downloading HR data is data collection as time in zones. This is
not immediately useful but over time when you want to go back & replicate a period of training that
worked very well you can get a very clear idea of what you did by simply looking at time in zones.
Remember that 60-100% of most road riders training in aerobic in nature.

If you set zones with HR remember to take into account your resting HR as well as Max. I prefer to
use the carcoven method as LT for most riders will fluctuate & you have nice zones which fit almost
everyone (unless your a Tester).

I think sport Doctors don't use HR so much for ergometer tests as it would be tough for them to use
it in a paper or results. They would first need to test the rider to find his Max HR then follow the
rider home to find his resting pulse (was it 28 or 85bpm!). Its also why they don't take blood
pressure , It makes you wonder how they could ever dream to get any results that are meaningful?

The other & probably most important reason to use HR is because its what we have been using all
these years ! I don't know how many hours I did between 250-300watts in March 1997 But I know to the
minute how many hours where done in Zone 3.

A few other bits of food for thought...

Hydration ..did I drink enough fluids during that race/ride? Was I able to keep HR under control?
did HR rise relative to Power?

Recovery...How fast do I recover ? do I recover???? :-(

How much does my HR deviate (the fitter you get the faster & wider the peeks & troughs of your HR as
your heart/body become responsive).

Heart rate is complicated & I think too complex for a beginner to use unless its just for your Zone
3, Recovery, steady miles etc. Power is very simple but can & I think will lead to over training as
PE goes flying out the window when Mr Ego takes over during the tough pre season period.I cant for
the life of me imagine trying to race a season here without any feedback from inside my body other
then Mr PE.

Here we go that should be enough for a while !

Phil www.turbovids.net

 

[Scott Patton]

In article <291020032213193451%[email protected]>, warren <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>Hello, Stewart! We've both already said HR isn't very useful for events as short as a minute
>although the maximum HR could be of interest. You'll find that people training for kilos use lap
>times and partial lap times to gauge or measure their effort, not power. Can you look at a power
>curve and tell us how long it took to cover the first 100 meters, first 300 meters, or 1000 meters?

Depending on the power meter and the software, yes. I have done exactly what you are asking about
and it was beneficial in driving home the importance of pacing in a pursuit.

>For longer TT's on the track HR and power become more useful but lap times still tell the more
>important story, not power, and you know what, power doesn't matter really, it's how quickly you
>get to the end of the race, and that is best measured with a watch and lap counter. Perhaps you can
>come up with some examples where power measurements are actually useful?

I don't think i woudl have a rider pace using power in a pursuit as their primary pacing tool,
however I don't think using it woudl be a very bad thing. Kilo... no use for it till later.

>
>> > 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?
>>
>> No, I do not think so. It would be foolish to not record HR.
>
>There are some cases where HR isn't useful (and the same goes for power), but those are not "common
>situations".

Live power... maybe.

Scott

--
-*- Scott Patton -*- Colorado Springs, CO -*- http://www.FixedGearFever.com -*- Track Racing
Web Services

 

[Scott Patton]

In article <301020030829543970%[email protected]>, warren <[email protected]> wrote:
>In article <[email protected]>, Phil <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Heart rate is complicated & I think too complex for a beginner to use unless its just for your
>> Zone 3, Recovery, steady miles etc. Power is very simple but can & I think will lead to over
>> training as PE goes flying out the window when Mr Ego takes over during the tough pre season
>> period.I cant for the life of me imagine trying to race a season here without any feedback from
>> inside my body other then Mr PE.
>
>I think at least part of the reason Andy is comfortable with PE is because of his experience with
>it in controlled settings. Most other people won't feel that way because of different experience.
>
>I raced a season without a HRM and relied on PE and it didn't work well for me.
>
>-WG

So you are "most others"? I know QUITE A FEW pros that don't train with power and it works for them.
Maybe, you feel more comfortable with data. I know I do. HR, Power, its "fact". My HR was 165. My
power was X. RPE is not fact, it is based on your brain!

Just cuz you spoon w/Max Testa on thursdays, please do not think you represent "most others".

Scott
--
-*- Scott Patton -*- Colorado Springs, CO -*- http://www.FixedGearFever.com -*- Track Racing
Web Services

 

[Warren]

In article <[email protected]>, Ryan Cousineau <[email protected]> wrote:

> In article <291020032213193451%[email protected]>, warren <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > In article <[email protected]>, Nick Burns
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > > "Stewart Fleming" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:1067399786.605984@ns...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Nick Burns wrote:
> >
> > > > 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?
> > >
> > > There is not enough info. It was a quick guess because I got my toe stuck in your trap.
> >
> > Hello, Stewart! We've both already said HR isn't very useful for events as short as a minute
> > although the maximum HR could be of interest. You'll find that people training for kilos use lap
> > times and partial lap times to gauge or measure their effort, not power. Can you look at a power
> > curve and tell us how long it took to cover the first 100 meters, first 300 meters, or 1000
> > meters?
>
> > For longer TT's on the track HR and power become more useful but lap times still tell the more
> > important story, not power, and you know what, power doesn't matter really, it's how quickly you
> > get to the end of the race, and that is best measured with a watch and lap counter. Perhaps you
> > can come up with some examples where power measurements are actually useful?
>
> Are you thinking on-track only?

Yes, because that was Stewart's example, it's what he's basing most of his arguments around and it
also tied in with what Andy said earlier about runners training on a track.

> Because the great glory of track racing is its repeatability. Every run on a particular track is
> pretty much the same: same elevation, usually similar wind conditions (especially for indoor
> tracks), and _no_ climbing.

-WG

 

[Warren]

In article <[email protected]>, Phil <[email protected]> wrote:

> Heart rate is complicated & I think too complex for a beginner to use unless its just for your
> Zone 3, Recovery, steady miles etc. Power is very simple but can & I think will lead to over
> training as PE goes flying out the window when Mr Ego takes over during the tough pre season
> period.I cant for the life of me imagine trying to race a season here without any feedback from
> inside my body other then Mr PE.

I think at least part of the reason Andy is comfortable with PE is because of his experience with it
in controlled settings. Most other people won't feel that way because of different experience.

I raced a season without a HRM and relied on PE and it didn't work well for me.

-WG

 

[Stewart Fleming]

warren wrote:

> Yes, because that was Stewart's example, it's what he's basing most of his arguments around and it
> also tied in with what Andy said earlier about runners training on a track.

No, the example was selected to elicit a certain response from another poster. It did.

 

[Stewart Fleming]

warren wrote:

> Hello, Stewart! We've both already said HR isn't very useful for events as short as a minute
> although the maximum HR could be of interest. You'll find that people training for kilos use
> lap times and partial lap times to gauge or measure their effort, not power. Can you look at a
> power curve and tell us how long it took to cover the first 100 meters, first 300 meters, or
> 1000 meters?

Hello Warren! That was the same example that you have commented on before when we agreed that HR
data wasn't especially useful for a short effort. I agree here that time/distance, especially as
quantified by lap times, is a useful measure for pace, if that is what we are focusing on training.

Let's say we are studying improvement of performance for a kilo or a pursuit rider, again on the
track. Let's say we identify aerodynamic position as a limiting factor. We figure that we can
improve performance by reducing drag, either through modification of rider position or by careful
selection of the least draggy equipment.

If we are experimenting with different positions and equipment, then for the same power output of
the rider, different time/distance (speed) results will be achieved. HR data would be largely
irrelevant here too, since power/frontal area are the things we would be most interested in.

You might find that the best aero position restricts power; you might find the best compromise
position and the power/frontal area that resulted gives you information that you can use to create
your corresponding schedule (pace notes). We might repeat testing for different equipment etc. It
seems to me to be appropriate for comparisons between data sets (either between riders or between
different setups for the same rider) to use power and speed as the indicators. You can measure,
compare and predict from that data.

> For longer TT's on the track HR and power become more useful but lap times still tell the more
> important story, not power, and you know what, power doesn't matter really, it's how quickly you
> get to the end of the race, and that is best measured with a watch and lap counter.

Again, if we are focusing on training pace judgement, then I agree that lap times and feedback
during a race are important.

> Perhaps you can come up with some examples where power measurements are actually useful?

See above. Power vs speed in determination of best position for kilo and longer TT efforts on
the track.

If we want to then see how that power is produced (is it above/below lactate equilibrium? how long
can it be sustained?), then we could take the same rider and equipment and put them on a Kingcycle,
give them a closely set power target, and take blood lactate measurements in a lab setting. Again, I
don't see it as strictly necessary to measure HR data in that situation either. STF