Heart Rate Or Power

[fergie]

Fergie, It isn't clear what you make you decisions on. Several current and former world CYCLING champions happen to incorporate gimmickcranks into their training. That fact certainly hasn't influenced your opinion of them. I simply don't know whether these individuals do or do not use PM's also.

Who knows, who cares. These days winning a World Title does not mean that person is the best in the World (running road Worlds in Oct when most riders have shut down for the season) and just because a top cyclist does something does not make it optimal. I think Bohm showed a decrease in power from using a Gimmickcrank.

Other than that, it is not clear he is missing anything in his training that might affect his performance. Clearly an argument can be made for using a PM. It is just that there is no scientific evidence to back up or disprove that argument.

He is missing the most objective measure of performance on the bike. He could be riding 1kph faster a week later, 5bpm, .1mmol lactate, .2 litre per min, pedalling 5rpm etc but this tells us nothing compared to producing an extra 5 watts from a week back. That is why the best studies use wattage to determine effort to measure other physiological variables or use an increase in wattage as the main criteria of comparison. There is your science. Name a better measure!

 

[fergie]

What is also amusing is here you are again demanding the science for Powermeters when you expect us to accept Gimmickcranks positively influence performance based purely on anecdote.

"If I have that piece of cake, can I eat it too???"

 

[sub7bikes.co.uk]

Thanks for all the replies, I think I shall invest in a power tap. I see them now (personally) as a great tool to use for testing.I think I'll use it twice a week on my hill repeats session and two days later on the 10 x 2 min flat intervals (both of which work off max HR.I'll post again when I have a few weeks worth results.

Hi Guys,
Could anyone share their experiences with training to heart rate zones or power levels, I myself have always used my own heart rate zones & based my training around this, but am I missing out?

 

[Alex Simmons]

What is also amusing is here you are again demanding the science for Powermeters when you expect us to accept Gimmickcranks positively influence performance based purely on anecdote.

"If I have that piece of cake, can I eat it too???"

Enough with the cake. Stop feeding the troll.

 

[skammer]

I have a garmin edge 705 and love it...the power meter would be a real expensive toy to me, but I am not a competitve cyclist at this time. I use my garmin data religiously though, and it tells me when I can push and when I shouldn't. I think that a PM would be a great additional tool for those that want to go to the next level but by itself is not an end...just another dimension for your training data.

 

[Fday]

What is also amusing is here you are again demanding the science for Powermeters when you expect us to accept Gimmickcranks positively influence performance based purely on anecdote.

"If I have that piece of cake, can I eat it too???"

No, what is amusing is you DEMAND PROOF of what we claim (based upon our own study and multiple supporting anecdotal reports) yet you put forth this absolute **** that a PM is the only way to judge performance improvement and the best way of improving performance despite absolutely zero scientific evidence to support such a proposition. At least PC's have some supporting scientific evidence (and a multitude of top pros, including several current and former world champions who swear by them). It is truly laughable coming from someone who has never had experience with them.

 

[fergie]

No, what is amusing is you DEMAND PROOF of what we claim (based upon our own study and multiple supporting anecdotal reports) yet you put forth this absolute **** that a PM is the only way to judge performance improvement and the best way of improving performance despite absolutely zero scientific evidence to support such a proposition.

Pretty weak trolling there Frank. Yes ignorance is bliss. Where has anyone said a powermeter is the ONLY way to judge performance?

At least PC's have some supporting scientific evidence (and a multitude of top pros, including several current and former world champions who swear by them). It is truly laughable coming from someone who has never had experience with them.

And it gets weaker. There is NO supporting scientific evidence for Gimmickcranks. Only your sad lack of understanding about science, physics and cycling which for a Physician and Nuclear Sub Engineer is pretty damned shocking.

Weak troll, I give it a D, must try harder.

 

[jollyrogers]

No, what is amusing is you DEMAND PROOF of what we claim (based upon our own study and multiple supporting anecdotal reports) yet you put forth this absolute **** that a PM is the only way to judge performance improvement and the best way of improving performance despite absolutely zero scientific evidence to support such a proposition. At least PC's have some supporting scientific evidence (and a multitude of top pros, including several current and former world champions who swear by them). It is truly laughable coming from someone who has never had experience with them.

Frank, what would you suggest is a better means to measure performance increase or decrease than a power meter and why?

 

[Fday]

Frank, what would you suggest is a better means to measure performance increase or decrease than a power meter and why?

Well, the best measure of performance increases (or decreases) IMHO are race performance results compared to others with whom one has a race history. Are you relatively better or worse than your peers.

Beyond that, power is a fine measure as far as it goes but it doesn't tell you if you have managed to improve power at the expense of good aerodynamics. So, a regular time-trial over the same course is probably a better judge of racing potential than power per se.

Anyhow, the purpose of training is to improve race performance. There are lots of ways to assess training effort and many here make a good argument that a PM should be superior. However, there is simply little or no evidence that it is actually so. Since the advent of HRM, PM, speedometers, etc. has anyone ever become a better cyclist than Eddie Merckx, someone who had none of those training aids as far as I know?

So, I am not sure it makes much difference as to what one uses to measure "performance" metrics as long as the training stimulus is adequate. While some may do better using a PM others may do worse. There simply is no evidence one way or the other and those who tout one method over another are simply spouting their bias, which was my original point.

 

[jollyrogers]

Well, the best measure of performance increases (or decreases) IMHO are race performance results compared to others with whom one has a race history. Are you relatively better or worse than your peers.

How would one distinguish whether he/she got better or peers got worse? What if your peers have a different "A" race?

Beyond that, power is a fine measure as far as it goes but it doesn't tell you if you have managed to improve power at the expense of good aerodynamics. .

Except that it can. See "Chung method". Time alone doesn't tell much about one's fitness without knowing a myriad of conditions.

Anyhow, the purpose of training is to improve race performance. There are lots of ways to assess training effort and many here make a good argument that a PM should be superior. However, there is simply little or no evidence that it is actually so. Since the advent of HRM, PM, speedometers, etc. has anyone ever become a better cyclist than Eddie Merckx, someone who had none of those training aids as far as I know?

Fitness is one part of race performance. Tactics, toughness, pack riding skill, and team support are a few of the others. In addition to HRM/PM, no one has become a more winning cyclist than Merckx since the advent of aluminum frames, carbon fiber frames, indexed shifting, integrated shifting, clipless pedals, energy gels, small cycling computers, etc (including PCs). Should cyclists eschew all of these as well?

So, I am not sure it makes much difference as to what one uses to measure "performance" metrics as long as the training stimulus is adequate. While some may do better using a PM others may do worse. There simply is no evidence one way or the other and those who tout one method over another are simply spouting their bias, which was my original point.

Again, what is a better way to measure training stimulus or dose than a Power Meter? Still waiting for your answer(s).

 

[fergie]

Well, the best measure of performance increases (or decreases) IMHO are race performance results compared to others with whom one has a race history. Are you relatively better or worse than your peers.

This makes the faulty assumption that physiological performance is all that matters in cycle racing. Also what if you don't race.

Beyond that, power is a fine measure as far as it goes but it doesn't tell you if you have managed to improve power at the expense of good aerodynamics.

Umm, yes it does. I spent some time at Track Nationals trying out different equipment by riding at a set speed and seeing the effect it had on power. More power for same speed means less aerodynamic.

So, a regular time-trial over the same course is probably a better judge of racing potential than power per se.

Ummm, not really. Times on out local 16km course vary by 90sec depending on the conditions. Also vary depending on the bike used. I go 90sec faster on my track bike than a road bike. Only constant is the power I produce.

Anyhow, the purpose of training is to improve race performance. There are lots of ways to assess training effort and many here make a good argument that a PM should be superior. However, there is simply little or no evidence that it is actually so.

So you keep saying so why does all the good sport science research use wattage as the main criteria of intensity (ramp tests) or as the main measure (max min power). The don't get riders to increase 10bpm every 3mins or .5mM of lactate every 8min. Even the Conconi test increasing speed every lap of a track is fraught with error (pacing, wind etc). Ignoring these things just makes you look more foolish.

Since the advent of HRM, PM, speedometers, etc. has anyone ever become a better cyclist than Eddie Merckx, someone who had none of those training aids as far as I know?

Eddy made the most of the training and coaching science that was available to him at the time. Does Eddy still hold any World Records. Nope. Well then I guess we can assume that riders these days are going better.

So, I am not sure it makes much difference as to what one uses to measure "performance" metrics as long as the training stimulus is adequate.

And what better way to prescribe the training stimulus than to use wattage. Can we say that the 2010 tour will be won at a certain heart rate, a certain lactate, a certain speed. We get closer to the goal performance metric by saying that a rider will need a certain power to weight for the climbs and power to FSA for the TTs and can use power as a metric in the flat stages to aim to produce the LEAST amount of power saving energy for the key moments.

While some may do better using a PM others may do worse.

Some just clearly don't understand the benefits or have received poor advice. Some just can't handle the reality of power. Knowing that I can sustain 6.8 W/kg for 44sec while Lance can hold it for 44min isn't all that motivating. As a coach I have been able to "reality check" a few riders who were just pissing around in training.

There simply is no evidence one way or the other and those who tout one method over another are simply spouting their bias, which was my original point.

Ignorance is bliss. Need to get out and see what is really happening in the cycling world Frank.

 

[bubsy]

Round and round up and down.
It's just became clear to me there is a nut job loose in these forums who takes pride in just dribbling $hit for the sake of dribbling $hit.

Many people take a power hit in Their TT position in favour of getting more aero which results in a faster time, a pm allows them to figure this out in training, and testing IS training... who knew?

Racing results are a poor indicator of physiological improvement as competitors can both improve or decrease their performances on any given day,
therefore one can become more aero and more powerful yet their results would show a decrease in performance, again a pm is the best measure of this... who knew?

The bottom line is there are no downsides to owning/using a pm, my race bikes are all 6.8kg with alloy clinchers so no strawman argument their either, If someone has the money to invest in a pm to measure power, improve there power/cda ratio etc etc, or alternatively go on weekend bender with the money instead then l would like see at least ONE GOOD reason not to purchase a pm of their choice in favour of a weekend of sin

 

[flup]

Hi Guys,
Could anyone share their experiences with training to heart rate zones or power levels, I myself have always used my own heart rate zones & based my training around this, but am I missing out?

Learn how to use RPE during training, use power and HR for analysing the ride at home

 

[Fday]

How would one distinguish whether he/she got better or peers got worse? What if your peers have a different "A" race?



Except that it can. See "Chung method". Time alone doesn't tell much about one's fitness without knowing a myriad of conditions.



Fitness is one part of race performance. Tactics, toughness, pack riding skill, and team support are a few of the others. In addition to HRM/PM, no one has become a more winning cyclist than Merckx since the advent of aluminum frames, carbon fiber frames, indexed shifting, integrated shifting, clipless pedals, energy gels, small cycling computers, etc (including PCs). Should cyclists eschew all of these as well?



Again, what is a better way to measure training stimulus or dose than a Power Meter? Still waiting for your answer(s).

Hey, I will concede that there is "no better way to measure a stimulus or a dose than a power meter." Now will you concede that no one has ever shown that being able to measure that stinulus or dose with more accuracy makes a difference in the outcome. I understand the arguments, simply find some data to support them.

And, I suspect that about 99.98% of the people viewing this thread are scratching their head and saying "chung method????"

 

[fergie]

Hey, I will concede that there is "no better way to measure a stimulus or a dose than a power meter." Now will you concede that no one has ever shown that being able to measure that stinulus or dose with more accuracy makes a difference in the outcome. I understand the arguments, simply find some data to support them.

Ha ha ha ha very funny Frank, ignorance is bliss. Or the ulterior motive of not wanting people to measure physiological performance because gimmickcrank owners would realise they had been conned.

You want data. I have 4 years worth of Powertap data from over 20 riders. HR, Speed, Cadence, Altutiude, Temperature don't really tell me much. The watts tell a huge story. You should get with the times and learn it.

 

[Alex Simmons]

Don't feed the troll.

 

[flup]

Or the ulterior motive of not wanting people to measure physiological performance.

You want data. I have 4 years worth of Powertap data from over 20 riders. HR, Speed, Cadence, Altutiude, Temperature don't really tell me much. The watts tell a huge story. You should get with the times and learn it.

Power is just mechanical energy a riders puts on his drivetrain. Altough beig VERY usefull, it doesn't tell him how this energy is being produced in a physiological way. The energy (poweroutput) is just the result.
Monitoring HR, altitude, temperature, etc is at least as important. Unless you are comparing 2 performances under identical conditions (which doesn't exist on the road).

Too many people consider the powermeter as the 'Holy Grail' like they did with the HRmonitor about 25 years ago.

 

[fergie]

Well as mentioned before they don't ride the bike for you. I do beg to differ that HR, cadence, or speed at anywhere near as important as power. Go to TrainingPeaks.com and you can see the varied ways tracking of wattage is beneficial to the training and performance process.

 

[Alex Simmons]

Power is just mechanical energy a riders puts on his drivetrain. Altough beig VERY usefull, it doesn't tell him how this energy is being produced in a physiological way. The energy (poweroutput) is just the result.
Monitoring HR, altitude, temperature, etc is at least as important. Unless you are comparing 2 performances under identical conditions (which doesn't exist on the road).

Too many people consider the powermeter as the 'Holy Grail' like they did with the HRmonitor about 25 years ago.

I (and many others) can deduce how we are producing power from a power meter file. Just because you don't know how, doesn't mean it can't be done.

Given PMs already measure HR, you aren't exactly losing anything.

 

[gman0482]

Having a PM is a huge advantage in how I train. Mostly because of the newbie factor, where I not experienced enough to know what I should be doing, or even not knowing my RPE well enough Learning my FTP and training by that guideline was much easier than figuring it out blindly and guessing what I should be doing. The PowerTap had to move down the wish list a few notches.

p.s. Alex: I am sending you my questionaire + $ over as the new year turns.

-Greg