Forget Your Bloody MHR!
- Thread starter Sillyoldtwit
- Start date
Actually I think if I spend $2k or so on a power tap, and my wife finds out, I'll have a new method of calculating my max HRJono L said:
RapDaddyo said:
You might have missed my location as being *Australia* ... The best I've seen is shipped out of the UK for about $1950 (AUD)
--brett
Agree with you that us healthy individuals don't have to worry about heart damage at high levels. But, for many people with heart irregularities, it's no joke. The senior editor of Bicycling Mag wrote a good article (early this year?) about his condition, the elevated risk of heart attack he faces, and how he continues to ride safely by avoiding max HR efforts that he used to love doing.Sillyoldtwit said:You're right Frenchy, it is just that there have been so many threads of late relating to HR/MHR.
I shan't say anymore except to answer Rd who posted earlier.
My MHR is 270bpm but I try to keep it at 269bpm because I don't want to damage my heart.
Personally, have found the HRM most useful for pacing during hilly century rides, where I wanted to stay in the aerobic zone as much as possible in order to finish well. Don't wear it much anymore now that I have a good idea of my personal pace, and am less worried (bothered) about being passed on the first few climbs of the day.
Before you spend that kind of money, consider that a local racer just won the World Masters TT Championships (30-39 age group) without a PM. He told me he'd like to have one someday, but they are just too expensive and the team won't pay for them. He said some of the lawyers on his team have PMs.sideshow_bob said:
He has a degree in exercise physiology, is a personal trainer, and does use an HRM. He said he tapes over the display while racing so he's not distracted or limited during the event, but still has the info for downloading later.
Another older guy here won his age bracket in the National Senior Olympics last fall. He doesn't even use an HRM in training.
Of course, anecdotes prove nothing. It's just that the fastest guys I know seem to be relatively unconcerned about a lot of the technical stuff. They look "normal", not super muscled or anything, and their training programs seem remarkably mundane or even unstructured compared to the programs I've read in books.
It's almost like they have some hidden talent that I'll never possess
You don't say! You mean talent has got something to do with it?dhk2 said:It's almost like they have some hidden talent that I'll never possess
Next time you'll come out and tell us that not everybody can become a Lance Armstrong, no matter how hard they try!
dhk2 said:
I think you missed my original post that said if my wife ever found me spending $2k (on a PM) then bad things, probably involving my testicles would ensue. The chances of me ever buying one are somewhere between improbably and nil.
I race with a HRM (road race) maybe once a month, mostly when I'm feeling a little flat just to ensure my HR is about where I'd expect. The only thing I do race with is a watch in crits. Training is a bit different, I use a HRM extensively when I'm doing specific workouts, such as intervals or recovery etc.
--brett
I could get away with spending $2k on the PM, if I could convince the MRS that it improves saftey. Next time I'm going to marry a sugar daddys daughter.sideshow_bob said:
BTW, I'm scared of those wiggling fingers too !!!!
(i) Hard to argue the "too expensive" line unless we know what the total bike racing budget is per individual and determine whether expenditure is being made with appropriate priorities? I'd suggest a PM should be higher up the priority list for many people.dhk2 said:Before you spend that kind of money, consider that a local racer just won the World Masters TT Championships (30-39 age group) without a PM. He told me he'd like to have one someday, but they are just too expensive and the team won't pay for them. He said some of the lawyers on his team have PMs.
He has a degree in exercise physiology, is a personal trainer, and does use an HRM. He said he tapes over the display while racing so he's not distracted or limited during the event, but still has the info for downloading later.
Another older guy here won his age bracket in the National Senior Olympics last fall. He doesn't even use an HRM in training.
Of course, anecdotes prove nothing. It's just that the fastest guys I know seem to be relatively unconcerned about a lot of the technical stuff. They look "normal", not super muscled or anything, and their training programs seem remarkably mundane or even unstructured compared to the programs I've read in books.
It's almost like they have some hidden talent that I'll never possess
(ii) So how will we know if they could have been even faster with appropriate training tools and advice? Perhaps they are actually wasting their talents and should be competing in elite categories instead? I use the PM to help me be the best I can be given my own personal circumstances.
This is always the way people who believe Philosophy A will try to suggest person using Philosophy B could be better using Philosophy A. By the same token, how do you know that the PM isn't actually holding you back in some way, shape, or form?Alex Simmons said:
Because the PM provides clear evidence of capacities and progress - on any given day, over the course of a season and from season to season, that's how.*normZurawski said:
Philosophy? Well that is an investigation of truths and principles. Not sure I'm arguing on basis of a philosophy - I'm just suggesting that having the data to support the investigation is a good thing. I'm also not arguing that people can't do well without a PM - but wouldn't you like to know why they do well?
* So it's just a coincidence that all my best performances (as measured by race results and times for timed events) have all been attained after obtaining a power meter and learning how to use the information (and I ain't getting any younger).
Alex: Yes, priorities. The rider I referred to saved his money to afford the trip to Salzburg. Going to Nationals and then Worlds with family support crew of two for 10 days was pretty expensive for him. Believe a lot of devoted amateur cyclists, guys who spend most of every morning training, are in the same boat with him. Unless you're a pro, just not much money to be had in the sport.Alex Simmons said:
Sure, we'll never know if a guy winning national and world masters titles could be better with a PM or a particular coach, or anything else. For solo training, would think the PM would be another valuable data source for a rider and his coach to review, along with HR, climbing profile, and speed. But ultimately, the successful guys seem to do a lot of hard racing, and learn to do what it takes to win through competition.
If the evidence was really clear-cut that a PM on the rear wheel was necessary to reach the highest levels, I'd think that every Cat 1, pro, or masters winner would have one for both training and racing. OTOH, maybe we're still in the dark ages. Since Floyd used one in the TdF on his big stage 17, maybe they'll become standard equipment in future peletons. Can certainly understand why his coach would want to see power data after the event, particularly on a stage race like the TdF.
Nice response - good luck to him and his family - great to have such support - vital to success as much as any PM could ever be. Correct, most of us do it because we love it and not for the money. A lucky few get both. I am very lucky because I can afford it. I also regularly train with 2 World Masters Champion trackies - one uses a PM and the other doesn't.dhk2 said:
Agree I think we (bike racers collectively) are still in the early days of getting the most out of PMs but as the sophistication of the data analysis and software improves, so does our ability to track and improve performance. As the demand for the hardware grows, so new devices enter the market and prices fall. Not everyone could afford an SRM when they first arrived but now we have an array of lower priced alternatives. I think that trend will continue.
The challenge continues to be to help people understand the masses of data PMs provide (and there are some exceptionally knowledgeble people out there who have contributed a great deal to our collective understanding). Nothing to be feared - people should embrace the learning experience it provides. For me it has been as much fun as the riding! I am my own mini-laboratory!
I think you midunderstood my comment. I didn't say the PM wasn't helping you. I asked how you could be sure your PM wasn't holding you back in some way shape or form. Using your own contention, how do you know that Method X doesn't work better? The answer is, you don't, you can't.Alex Simmons said:
This isn't a rant against PMs, per se. I'm just getting tired of the elitism that seems to be rapidly enveloping people who purchase a PM. This isn't specifically aimed at you. It's a general comment. Every time someone suggests that you don't need a PM to have a good time and/or perform well, there seems to be a general squashing of that person's contention.
How could measuring performance and providing feedback in an effective and consistent manner hold one back? That seems counter-intuitive to me. I don't know anyone who, when provided with data on their performance and some benchmarks, doesn't want to know how they can do better (whether it be athletic performance or anything else we do). That's the point of a PM. It helps you pin point how. I only hope many more get the opportunity I have been fortunate enough to have.normZurawski said:
Norm, I see where you could get the impression of elitism. It can seem a bit preachy at times, as if the PM users have seen the light and are now a cut above the rest of us. But honestly believe what you're getting is real enthusiasm for power-based training, just like all the buzz with HRMs when they became popular 20 years ago.normZurawski said:
In the future, as technology brings smaller, lighter and cheaper PM equipment, believe you'll see the number of users continue to expand. Like HRMs are now, wouldn't be surprised if PMs become fairly common over the next 20 years. Will this tool make all of us into super racers? Of course not. But, if it inspires and helps some people to train more seriously, more consistently and smarter, the tool can't be bad.
Some riders/racers don't seem to want or need all the quantification, and will resist. Hey, I know a guy, strong club rider, who doesn't even have a working computer on his bike. When I asked him how he knows his speed, or keeps track of miles ridden, he just doesn't feel that's anything to worry about. What's important to him is coming out with the group on weekends, riding strong with the pack, doing "whatever it takes" to stay with his buddies, and having a good time in the process. Rather than tracking of personal improvement, just enjoying the ride is his goal.
dhk2 said:Before you spend that kind of money, consider that a local racer just won the World Masters TT Championships (30-39 age group) without a PM. He told me he'd like to have one someday, but they are just too expensive and the team won't pay for them. He said some of the lawyers on his team have PMs.
He has a degree in exercise physiology, is a personal trainer, and does use an HRM. He said he tapes over the display while racing so he's not distracted or limited during the event, but still has the info for downloading later.
Another older guy here won his age bracket in the National Senior Olympics last fall. He doesn't even use an HRM in training.
Of course, anecdotes prove nothing. It's just that the fastest guys I know seem to be relatively unconcerned about a lot of the technical stuff. They look "normal", not super muscled or anything, and their training programs seem remarkably mundane or even unstructured compared to the programs I've read in books.
It's almost like they have some hidden talent that I'll never possess
The strongest riders i know dont use a PM. if you have the gift you have the gift.
Well, there are certain assumptions you make. Such as...Alex Simmons said:
* The PM is the most effective way to measure performance. Can you say this with 100% certainty?
* The benchmarks chose are actually the most efficient way to improve. By focusing on one area, are we inadvertently neglecting another area?
* The PM in no way, shape, or form distracts you from, say, focusing on internal stresses, such as nutritional needs and so forth. Even the Coggan/Hunter book says this is a drawback of PMs.
I'm sure there are others. My point is that it's a tool, and there's no way you can say that this tool is perfect. As mentioned, even the Coggan/Hunter book says it's not perfect. So until a perfect tool comes along, how do you know the imperfections of the PM are not in some way holding you back?
