Power and heart rate monitors

[Dr. Seuss]

 

 

at what point did the interval actually start in the HR subjects?

 

 

 

if i do a L5 interval with the PT at 117%FTP the clock starts running as soon as i hit the required wattage.

 

 

 

obviously my HR also goes up,  but there is approximately a 3 minute

lag on the HR - so for my 5 minute interval based on 117% of my FTP

power I really only sit for 2 minutes in my peak HR zone.

 

 

 

so - if i evaluate my 5min interval based on HR,  i only did 2 min at

the required zone,  but if i look at it from a power point of view,  i

did 5 min in the required zone.

 

 

 

so it seems to me then that the HR subjects were actually doing a 7min

L5 interval whereas the power subjects were doing a 4min L5 session, 

and therefore the HR guys would improve more than the power guys

because of the load being higher?

 

 

 

 

 

[Rocket Man]

Hold the phone Doc!

Are you saying that inspite of greater VO2max and PPo the actual riding performance of the subjects (40km TT) wasn't significantly different?

It kinda' begs the question as to how much belief each subject had in their selected training method - that alone could account for a 2% improvement!

 

Also, I think it's easier to recover from a constant heart rate workout than from a constant power one - maybe the power guys showed more signs of fatigue...

 

The questions are endless - are you going to make this paper available for us to see?

[The Doctor]

The heart rate intervals are recorded based on the time and not on the actual heart rate.

Heart rate lag is about 3min. for the first interval falls to less than 45s by the third interval.

 

[The Doctor]

It kinda' begs the question as to how much belief each subject had in their selected training method - that alone could account for a 2% improvement!

 

Also' date=' I think it's easier to recover from a constant heart rate workout than from a constant power one - maybe the power guys showed more signs of fatigue...

 

The questions are endless - are you going to make this paper available for us to see?

[/quote']

 

All the VO2max tests and PPO's were controlled and validated for maximal effort. Are you saying that the Power group didn't improve as much in the TT because they didn't believe that their training was as effective? That sounds like a bit of having your cake and eating it (isn't everyone screaming about how good power based training is?).

 

Some of the power group were excessively fatigue as monitored by a submaximal recovery test. We controlled for lots of different factors, including fatigue.

 

 

[BikeMax]

 

Although each group of subjects trained at identical averge power outputs and heart rates throughout the study' date=' the heart rate group improved their VO2max and peak power output to a greater extent. [/quote']

 

Doc, did you look at why this happens?

 

I know from track training programs that 4min intervals aren't going to help your VO2 or max power very much. But shorter, higher intensity intervals are far more effective. Is it not the case that your constant heart rate subjects were actually doing a totally different program from the constant power guys? By that I mean that they were getting more peak power training during the period that they were raising their heart rate. I'm guessing that there would be a 30% higher peak power for the HRM subjects.

 

Given the number of intervals they were doing the power subjects were training TT capability whilst the heart rate subjects were training peak power with active recovery...?

 

 

Now you are talking..

 

Half life for HR around 26 secs (If I recall correctly) would mean about 2.5-3 mins for HR to level off. While attempting to achieve target HR the subjects would have been at a level closer to Vo2 Max and so maybe spent more time at or around this zone - leading to a greater increase in Vo2 ?

 

[Guest Big H]

Ursus maximus really luved this post!!!!!! At least the power meter people can help EKSDOM out in their hour of need. Come on guys start donating some of your watts!!!!!!!!

[The Doctor]

Although each group of subjects trained at identical averge power outputs and heart rates throughout the study' date=' the heart rate group improved their VO2max and peak power output to a greater extent. [/quote']

 

Doc, did you look at why this happens?

 

I know from track training programs that 4min intervals aren't going to help your VO2 or max power very much. But shorter, higher intensity intervals are far more effective. Is it not the case that your constant heart rate subjects were actually doing a totally different program from the constant power guys? By that I mean that they were getting more peak power training during the period that they were raising their heart rate. I'm guessing that there would be a 30% higher peak power for the HRM subjects.

 

Given the number of intervals they were doing the power subjects were training TT capability whilst the heart rate subjects were training peak power with active recovery...?

 

Now you are talking..

Half life for HR around 26 secs (If I recall correctly) would mean about 2.5-3 mins for HR to level off. While attempting to achieve target HR the subjects would have been at a level closer to Vo2 Max and so maybe spent more time at or around this zone - leading to a greater increase in Vo2 ?

 

Exactly!

[The Doctor]

Although each group of subjects trained at identical averge power outputs and heart rates throughout the study' date=' the heart rate group improved their VO2max and peak power output to a greater extent. [/quote']

 

Doc, did you look at why this happens?

 

I know from track training programs that 4min intervals aren't going to help your VO2 or max power very much. But shorter, higher intensity intervals are far more effective. Is it not the case that your constant heart rate subjects were actually doing a totally different program from the constant power guys? By that I mean that they were getting more peak power training during the period that they were raising their heart rate. I'm guessing that there would be a 30% higher peak power for the HRM subjects.

 

Given the number of intervals they were doing the power subjects were training TT capability whilst the heart rate subjects were training peak power with active recovery...?

 

Now you are talking..

Half life for HR around 26 secs (If I recall correctly) would mean about 2.5-3 mins for HR to level off. While attempting to achieve target HR the subjects would have been at a level closer to Vo2 Max and so maybe spent more time at or around this zone - leading to a greater increase in Vo2 ?

 

Exactly!

[The Doctor]

Although each group of subjects trained at identical averge power outputs and heart rates throughout the study' date=' the heart rate group improved their VO2max and peak power output to a greater extent. [/quote']

 

Doc, did you look at why this happens?

 

I know from track training programs that 4min intervals aren't going to help your VO2 or max power very much. But shorter, higher intensity intervals are far more effective. Is it not the case that your constant heart rate subjects were actually doing a totally different program from the constant power guys? By that I mean that they were getting more peak power training during the period that they were raising their heart rate. I'm guessing that there would be a 30% higher peak power for the HRM subjects.

 

Given the number of intervals they were doing the power subjects were training TT capability whilst the heart rate subjects were training peak power with active recovery...?

 

Now you are talking..

Half life for HR around 26 secs (If I recall correctly) would mean about 2.5-3 mins for HR to level off. While attempting to achieve target HR the subjects would have been at a level closer to Vo2 Max and so maybe spent more time at or around this zone - leading to a greater increase in Vo2 ?

 

Exactly!

[The Doctor]

Although each group of subjects trained at identical averge power outputs and heart rates throughout the study' date=' the heart rate group improved their VO2max and peak power output to a greater extent. [/quote']

 

Doc, did you look at why this happens?

 

I know from track training programs that 4min intervals aren't going to help your VO2 or max power very much. But shorter, higher intensity intervals are far more effective. Is it not the case that your constant heart rate subjects were actually doing a totally different program from the constant power guys? By that I mean that they were getting more peak power training during the period that they were raising their heart rate. I'm guessing that there would be a 30% higher peak power for the HRM subjects.

 

Given the number of intervals they were doing the power subjects were training TT capability whilst the heart rate subjects were training peak power with active recovery...?

 

Now you are talking..

Half life for HR around 26 secs (If I recall correctly) would mean about 2.5-3 mins for HR to level off. While attempting to achieve target HR the subjects would have been at a level closer to Vo2 Max and so maybe spent more time at or around this zone - leading to a greater increase in Vo2 ?

 

Exactly!

[Guest colonel]

Not wishing to steel your post' date=' but you seem like the people to ask....

I am seriously researching a return to full time study, having take a 1 year break from work. I am trying to figure out how i would go about get into a work position in an elite sports environment (having a long term view/plan).

I know everyone always answers sports science degree. or that you have to have a competative sporting background, but all the sports science grads I know ended up doing personal training at Virgin active type places..... and I've never been a pro-am level sportsman.

What would you recommend as a line of study, what is the most targeted approach to take? Very interested to hear your thoughts

[/quote']

 

To let you know what I did with regards to this so it might help you:

 

I raced MX forever, I achieved relatively good success at Regional Level and at National level I had flashes of brilliance but generally it was not good enough to be on the best teams and have the best equipment but to race MX you need money and with all the top riders getting industry sponsors I went outside the industry to find them and managed to learn to draw up my own CV's and go and sell myself. With that being said I enjoyed the Mon-Fri side of MX being the training, learning side of it and maybe that where I went wrong but I had a obsesive passion for the sport.

 

When it was time to call it a day from riding a friend of mine asked me to "train" him, this I did in my spare time beofre and after my 8-5 office job. As this started to work result wise for him more people came ot ask me for help and I slowley got all the stuff I was doing refined and put programs and procedures into place through trial and error over the space of about 1,5years. I also went and studied at ETA (SSISA learning division) a Sports Management and Training Certificate so I had something behind my name if it ever came to that and I had to show something to some pesty parent. So to say you have to have this degree or whatever is not true I honestly believe its what you know and can teach yourself. Yes those degress help but depending on what you want to do and in what part of the sporting industry.

 

From then to now I started with 1 rider in Cape Town I now have 14 riders in total with 1 heading off to Canada to race for the remainder of the year and not including my National Team of 5 riders and a budget of just under R2mill from a outside sponsor for the year and we are dong really well results wise.

 

If you are truelly passionate about your chosen sport or sport in general it is worth doing and getting into but in saying that you need to be able to spot talent in that sport and nurture it and in saying that top athletes are not easy to work with and they want every free as they beleive it is their right to get free stuff cause they good and if someone tells you otherwise they are lieing to you Im afraid and bear in mind that you will only make money from that athlete as long as they are on top form, once they are injured or go off the rails and decide to hang it all up you lose your paycheck at the end of the month so it is a big gamble but the bonus side is when they do do well, its such and awsome feeling inside that you heloed him/her get that result, it is really an induscribable feeling. (well for me anyway)

 

I will say thou is that I wouldnt change my job for all the money in the world and the perks from the sponsored riders is awsome when they get free stuff and they just pump you full of crap.

 

 

 

 

[Guest colonel]

Not wishing to steel your post' date=' but you seem like the people to ask....

I am seriously researching a return to full time study, having take a 1 year break from work. I am trying to figure out how i would go about get into a work position in an elite sports environment (having a long term view/plan).

I know everyone always answers sports science degree. or that you have to have a competative sporting background, but all the sports science grads I know ended up doing personal training at Virgin active type places..... and I've never been a pro-am level sportsman.

What would you recommend as a line of study, what is the most targeted approach to take? Very interested to hear your thoughts

[/quote']

 

To let you know what I did with regards to this so it might help you:

 

I raced MX forever, I achieved relatively good success at Regional Level and at National level I had flashes of brilliance but generally it was not good enough to be on the best teams and have the best equipment but to race MX you need money and with all the top riders getting industry sponsors I went outside the industry to find them and managed to learn to draw up my own CV's and go and sell myself. With that being said I enjoyed the Mon-Fri side of MX being the training, learning side of it and maybe that where I went wrong but I had a obsesive passion for the sport.

 

When it was time to call it a day from riding a friend of mine asked me to "train" him, this I did in my spare time beofre and after my 8-5 office job. As this started to work result wise for him more people came ot ask me for help and I slowley got all the stuff I was doing refined and put programs and procedures into place through trial and error over the space of about 1,5years. I also went and studied at ETA (SSISA learning division) a Sports Management and Training Certificate so I had something behind my name if it ever came to that and I had to show something to some pesty parent. So to say you have to have this degree or whatever is not true I honestly believe its what you know and can teach yourself. Yes those degress help but depending on what you want to do and in what part of the sporting industry.

 

From then to now I started with 1 rider in Cape Town I now have 14 riders in total with 1 heading off to Canada to race for the remainder of the year and not including my National Team of 5 riders and a budget of just under R2mill from a outside sponsor for the year and we are dong really well results wise.

 

If you are truelly passionate about your chosen sport or sport in general it is worth doing and getting into but in saying that you need to be able to spot talent in that sport and nurture it and in saying that top athletes are not easy to work with and they want every free as they beleive it is their right to get free stuff cause they good and if someone tells you otherwise they are lieing to you Im afraid and bear in mind that you will only make money from that athlete as long as they are on top form, once they are injured or go off the rails and decide to hang it all up you lose your paycheck at the end of the month so it is a big gamble but the bonus side is when they do do well, its such and awsome feeling inside that you heloed him/her get that result, it is really an induscribable feeling. (well for me anyway)

 

I will say thou is that I wouldnt change my job for all the money in the world and the perks from the sponsored riders is awsome when they get free stuff and they just pump you full of crap.

 

 

 

 

[The Doctor]

Although each group of subjects trained at identical averge power outputs and heart rates throughout the study' date=' the heart rate group improved their VO2max and peak power output to a greater extent. [/quote']

 

Doc, did you look at why this happens?

 

I know from track training programs that 4min intervals aren't going to help your VO2 or max power very much. But shorter, higher intensity intervals are far more effective. Is it not the case that your constant heart rate subjects were actually doing a totally different program from the constant power guys? By that I mean that they were getting more peak power training during the period that they were raising their heart rate. I'm guessing that there would be a 30% higher peak power for the HRM subjects.

 

Given the number of intervals they were doing the power subjects were training TT capability whilst the heart rate subjects were training peak power with active recovery...?

 

 

24.38% greater. Remember that they were equaly lower by the end of the interval as well.

 

Hence - Same averge, different power curve, better training stimulus.

 

 

 

[BikeMax]

 

Although each group of subjects trained at identical averge power outputs and heart rates throughout the study' date=' the heart rate group improved their VO2max and peak power output to a greater extent. [/quote']

 

Doc, did you look at why this happens?

 

I know from track training programs that 4min intervals aren't going to help your VO2 or max power very much. But shorter, higher intensity intervals are far more effective. Is it not the case that your constant heart rate subjects were actually doing a totally different program from the constant power guys? By that I mean that they were getting more peak power training during the period that they were raising their heart rate. I'm guessing that there would be a 30% higher peak power for the HRM subjects.

 

Given the number of intervals they were doing the power subjects were training TT capability whilst the heart rate subjects were training peak power with active recovery...?

 

 

Now you are talking..

 

Half life for HR around 26 secs (If I recall correctly) would mean about 2.5-3 mins for HR to level off. While attempting to achieve target HR the subjects would have been at a level closer to Vo2 Max and so maybe spent more time at or around this zone - leading to a greater increase in Vo2 ?

 

Exactly!

 

Yes - but this serves to illustrate that the training load was not equal between the two groups. One group spent more time closer to Vo2 Max and so improved more.

 

If you had simulated a ramped interval protocol with the power group then the results would likely have been the same.

 

I can, and do prescribe intervals in this manner in some cases - but the downside is that it is a sub optimal pacing strategy for almost all cycling disciplines and so is counter intuitive.

 

I also suspect that the effect you noted would be inversely proportional to the length of the interval - longer interval = less benefit to ramped strategy.

 

I am still missing the link to HR however, as this protocol is easy to follow using RPE, power or HR, so we are debating interval protocol and pacing rather than HR Vs power for measuring intensity aren't we ?

 

[Cheryl J]

Good point....?i.e. a heart rate based session will lead to a different power curve than a power based session. ?And accordingly a different training response.

 

Seems quite logical, actually.

 

Where the?Doctor's?research does kinda get interesting for me?is?in looking at what is required from HR based training in?contrast?to power training. ?I.e. what do I need to do based on HRate to get an equivelant power based training session.

 

i.e. to do?ramped?power?interval?strategy?only?utilising?my?HR?monitor,?I?should?do?

a?steady?state?hr?interval?such?as?that?tested.

Or something along those lines.

 

[JasonW]

One should not lose sight of the fact that what we are interested in is a ?certain objective physiological response?to?the?training?that?we?do.?

So?if?I?want?to?maximise?the?V02?max?benefit?that?I?receive?from?a?session,?then?I?have?to?adopt?a?certain?training?strategy.?

How?exactly?I?define?the?boundaries?of?that?session?is?more?or?less?arbitrary?and?will?be?influenced?by?the?measuring?device,?temperature,?etc.

Docs study is obviously extremely useful as it shows us how to train better with a power meter. It does not mean (and I'm not suggesting that the study seaks to prove this ) that training with a HR monitor is more effective.