New to power

[jslopez93]

So kindly forgive the total ignorance but, does power training totally forego the need for an HRM?

I was reading a guide on how to use this upcoming product, the ibike pro - http://www.ibikesports.com/document...aining_book.pdf and you seem to get your baseline measurements based on doing several test drills.

So similar to HR, is your power at LT pretty much constant over differnet conditions (like climbing versus flats). The way I understand my HR/LT is that once I go beyond that poing then I'm building up lactic acid. Is there a Power/LT equivalent?

info on this would be greatly appreciated.

 

[Woofer]

So kindly forgive the total ignorance but, does power training totally forego the need for an HRM?

I was reading a guide on how to use this upcoming product, the ibike pro - http://www.ibikesports.com/document...aining_book.pdf and you seem to get your baseline measurements based on doing several test drills.

So similar to HR, is your power at LT pretty much constant over differnet conditions (like climbing versus flats). The way I understand my HR/LT is that once I go beyond that poing then I'm building up lactic acid. Is there a Power/LT equivalent?

info on this would be greatly appreciated.

Read the Power FAQs.

You will never say heart rate is similar to power again.

I don't think lactic acid means what you think it means, either.


http://midweekclub.ca/articles/

 

[jslopez93]

Read the Power FAQs.

You will never say heart rate is similar to power again.

I don't think lactic acid means what you think it means, either.


http://midweekclub.ca/articles/

Coolness.

Obivously I've got a warped understanding of the whole subject and I'll need some time to go over all those articles but as it stands though my threshold wattage (although it can be improved) should be constant over a range of different cycling terrains ? For example it's the same where I'm on flats versus climbing? Or am I totally off **** again.

 

[whoawhoa]

Coolness.

Obivously I've got a warped understanding of the whole subject and I'll need some time to go over all those articles but as it stands though my threshold wattage (although it can be improved) should be constant over a range of different cycling terrains ? For example it's the same where I'm on flats versus climbing? Or am I totally off **** again.

Well, threshold wattage may not be constan over a variety of terrain due to positions outside of what you normally train in, such as a time trial position for someone who doesn't train like that often, etc.

Second of all, this has to do with your first post: Lt is a workload. It's not a heart rate. Wattage is one way of quantifying that workload. Also, lt as defined in most labs is a much lower intensity than what most athletes think of it as. Therefore, Andy Coggan's training levels system (which can be found in the link Woofer posted) are based on functional threshold (1-hr tt power) which eliminates the need for formal lactate testing.

Thirdly: Power is much more constant than heart rate. If you are riding with a pm, I don't think there's any reason to use a hrm except for long endurance or tempo rides where you may find it easier to keep hr steady rather than power (which can tend to jump around when just riding).

 

[jslopez93]

Well, threshold wattage may not be constan over a variety of terrain due to positions outside of what you normally train in, such as a time trial position for someone who doesn't train like that often, etc.

Second of all, this has to do with your first post: Lt is a workload. It's not a heart rate. Wattage is one way of quantifying that workload. Also, lt as defined in most labs is a much lower intensity than what most athletes think of it as. Therefore, Andy Coggan's training levels system (which can be found in the link Woofer posted) are based on functional threshold (1-hr tt power) which eliminates the need for formal lactate testing.

Thirdly: Power is much more constant than heart rate. If you are riding with a pm, I don't think there's any reason to use a hrm except for long endurance or tempo rides where you may find it easier to keep hr steady rather than power (which can tend to jump around when just riding).

I guess I'm coming from a really basic understanding of training where my HR corresponds to where I am in physically in terms of what type of training I'm doing. I understand that HR is not up to the second accurate but it guides me as follows

Over 174 bpm - above LT therefore not sustainable for very long
155- 174 - Sustainable yet very strong effort
130 -154 - Moderate
129 and below - recovery

So in a given ride once I see 174 + I'm starting to watch myself and hence I was wondering if there's a power number equivalent or if I'm comparing apples to oranges and simply need to learn a new process.

The articles give great insight though and I will be sure to read them more thoroughly later.

 

[jerryz]

I guess I'm coming from a really basic understanding of training where my HR corresponds to where I am in physically in terms of what type of training I'm doing. I understand that HR is not up to the second accurate but it guides me as follows

Over 174 bpm - above LT therefore not sustainable for very long
155- 174 - Sustainable yet very strong effort
130 -154 - Moderate
129 and below - recovery

So in a given ride once I see 174 + I'm starting to watch myself and hence I was wondering if there's a power number equivalent or if I'm comparing apples to oranges and simply need to learn a new process.

The articles give great insight though and I will be sure to read them more thoroughly later.

Read the linked articles then come back with your questions. But read first.

 

[Woofer]

I guess I'm coming from a really basic understanding of training where my HR corresponds to where I am in physically in terms of what type of training I'm doing. I understand that HR is not up to the second accurate but it guides me as follows

Over 174 bpm - above LT therefore not sustainable for very long
155- 174 - Sustainable yet very strong effort
130 -154 - Moderate
129 and below - recovery

So in a given ride once I see 174 + I'm starting to watch myself and hence I was wondering if there's a power number equivalent or if I'm comparing apples to oranges and simply need to learn a new process.

The articles give great insight though and I will be sure to read them more thoroughly later.

My personal experience after actually buying a SRM/PowerTap/Ergomo/whatever powermeter is that I don't use heart rate for anything except a secondary verification of perceived exertion and the values on the power meter (obviously after a calibration) . If you have a power meter, heart rate is not nearly as useful. To stop micro monitoring your heart rate is a really hard habit for people to break for people who have been raised on that methodology. The i-bike sounds like is is just analyticalcycling.com in a bike computer, not really a power meter but a power estimator.

 

[RapDaddyo]

I was wondering if there's a power number equivalent or if I'm comparing apples to oranges and simply need to learn a new process.

The short answer is yes, there is a power number range that corresponds with different training goals (e.g., increase VO2MAX). It is also true that you will have (as we all have) a max power/duration curve, which simply means that you plot the total number of minutes you can hold a given power. As you decrease power, you increase duration. The first number you should obtain is your 1hr max power, the gold standard for setting training levels. [Note: there is an alternate approach, MAP, that you can use to set your training levels - see Ric Stern's website. Use one or the other.]

 

[jslopez93]

The i-bike sounds like is is just analyticalcycling.com in a bike computer, not really a power meter but a power estimator.

Actually read the FAQ on the I-bike. I'm waiting for actual test results but it does seem like there could be sound engineering behind the product. How well it actually works, remains to be seen.

 

[rmur17]

Actually read the FAQ on the I-bike. I'm waiting for actual test results but it does seem like there could be sound engineering behind the product. How well it actually works, remains to be seen.

For general cycling application, they have quite a hard series of problems to solve. But I'll admit I'd probably buy one for my m/b which I ride on the road a lot with a pretty darned constant riding position. Of course riding on the road versus trail would throw power off quite a lot so ... .... ah well I keep hoping the problems are solvable but I have many, many doubts.

it's a tough, tough problem without measuring torque and angular velocity as SRM, PT and Ergomo do. Polar I can't really comment on but I'm not impressed from what I've read.

 

[frenchyge]

info on this would be greatly appreciated.

You might give this a look when it comes out:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1931382794/qid=1138287754/sr=2-1/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_1/104-8434846-9603912?s=books&v=glance&n=283155

 

[jslopez93]

For general cycling application, they have quite a hard series of problems to solve. But I'll admit I'd probably buy one for my m/b which I ride on the road a lot with a pretty darned constant riding position. Of course riding on the road versus trail would throw power off quite a lot so ... .... ah well I keep hoping the problems are solvable but I have many, many doubts.

it's a tough, tough problem without measuring torque and angular velocity as SRM, PT and Ergomo do. Polar I can't really comment on but I'm not impressed from what I've read.

MTN bike will pose more problems methinks as the varying angles you will have your bike (when jumping obstacles for example) will throw the inclinometer off.