Jump to content

Power and heart rate monitors


The Doctor

Recommended Posts

Thank the heavens above I havent bought a PM and will carry on relying on my 725i.......

 

See what you've done doc?  I told you they would only read the bottom line!

 

PM's (and you could include HRM's) are a bit like vitamins, anti-oxidants and all the other unpronounceable gunk that is added to the energy / recovery drinks available on the market, they all sound nice and can be promoted with all sorts of Scientific evidence, but at the end of the day do they really make a difference or do we need them?<?: prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

 

Take a sport outside of cycling i.e. one that where you cannot use a PM, road running would be a good example, plenty of athletes who don?t even use a HRM there and they manage just fine with their training and racing performance.

 

I'm not knocking either of the 2, suppose you could say that I think that business marketing plays a role in the equation. I have used both PM and HRM in training (and still prefer my HRM).

The best training tool is your brain Wink

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 80
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

 

Thank the heavens above I havent bought a PM and will carry on relying on my 725i.......

 

See what you've done doc?  I told you they would only read the bottom line!

 

PM's (and you could include HRM's) are a bit like vitamins' date=' anti-oxidants and all the other unpronounceable gunk that is added to the energy / recovery drinks available on the market, they all sound nice and can be promoted with all sorts of Scientific evidence, but at the end of the day do they really make a difference or do we need them?

 

Take a sport outside of cycling i.e. one that where you cannot use a PM, road running would be a good example, plenty of athletes who don?t even use a HRM there and they manage just fine with their training and racing performance.

 

I'm not knocking either of the 2, suppose you could say that I think that business marketing plays a role in the equation. I have used both PM and HRM in training (and still prefer my HRM).

The best training tool is your brain Wink

[/quote']

 

I find this approach really hard to understand - to compare an advance in measuring technology to vitamins etc is way off the mark.

 

It is a bit like saying - leave those new fangled clipless pedals alone, the old straps and clips we ride now are just as good ...

 

Vitamins, nutritional supplements etc might do what they say they do and they might not, but a device like a power meter simply does what it says - it measures power output.

 

Whether you think that being able to measure output is of use or not is up to you, but if you look at most fields you will see that advanced technology almost always leads to advancement in progres and performance (Smaller, faster computers, more accurate and powerful telescopes, digital cameras, more accurate measuring devices etc etc etc...)

 

There have been many examples of new technology that has been introduced to cycling, rejected by the naysayers as marketing hype and then only a few years later universally accepeted as the norm - TT bars, clipless pedals, aero helmets, dual suss MTB, aero wheels, stiffer soled shoes - the list goes on an on.

 

Just because somebody does well without something does not mean they cannot do better with it.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Thank the heavens above I havent bought a PM and will carry on relying on my 725i.......

 

Shall I cancel your order ?Wink

 

In all seriousness and you know very well I am very suspect over PM. Now this comes out from a guy who I value his and a another persons opinion over everyone elses and he now comes out and says this.

 

I am now even more messed up in the head about the PM deal!!

 

I don't think you should be more confused at all - I think that regardless of the study and what it says, the take home from the Doc as I see it is this;

 

Measuring your output with a power meter is the way forward but just make sure you use it properly - know thy tool.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Remember, the strain gauge technology used to measure the output of the cyclist is old hate in the wider world of industrial engineering. It's proven technology that is used in multiple critical applications and is accepted as accurate and effective. We're 'new' to it as non elite cyclists, when it's been around in elite circles for a good 12 plus years already. The science of sports science is also relatively new, at least in it's accessibility to the general public. However, what we can say for sure is that controlling of the variables of training load, and their effects on the human body are advancing our understanding of what we are capable of. NASA didn't go down this route because it was fun and exciting... they wanted to know every possible load that the crew where under, physical and physiological. <?: prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

 

I've routinely read that PRE, HRM and Power give a 360 degree training view. Physically this is true, to a point. But the oldest adage is still true, and still missing from this equation. Pushing your limits is 10% physical and 90% mental. We can argue over the % all we like but when push comes to shove I've personally witnessed supremely fit people 'rap' or break when mentally tougher but supposedly physically less fit or weaker persons soldier on.

 

The mind is where the truly untapped power is to be found?..

 

PPWTF2008-04-19 05:01:18
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Having added my non scientific 10 cents worth I should say that this post has been awesome reading. Thanks to all who've added something knowledgable. At the end of the day I'm just a member fo the public who cycles, but because of a forum like this i'm reading a debate about something at the cutting edge of sport science.... Now thats pretty eye opening

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Remember' date=' the strain gauge technology used to measure the output of the cyclist is old hate in the wider world of industrial engineering. It's proven technology that is used in multiple critical applications and is accepted as accurate and effective. We're 'new' to it as non elite cyclists, when it's been around in elite circles for a good 12 plus years already. The science of sports science is also relatively new, at least in it's accessibility to the general public. However, what we can say for sure is that controlling of the variables of training load, and their effects on the human body are advancing our understanding of what we are capable of. NASA didn't go down this route because it was fun and exciting... they wanted to know every possible load that the crew where under, physical and physiological.

 

I've routinely read that PRE, HRM and Power give a 360 degree training view. Physically this is true, to a point. But the oldest adage is still true, and still missing from this equation. Pushing your limits is 10% physical and 90% mental. We can argue over the % all we like but when push comes to shove I've personally witnessed supremely fit people 'rap' or break when mentally tougher but supposedly physically less fit or weaker persons soldier on.

 

The mind is where the truly untapped power is to be found?..

 

[/quote']

 

I could not agree more - but as we make progress in this area I want to be able to measure it...Wink

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Remember' date=' the strain gauge technology used to measure the output of the cyclist is old hate in the wider world of industrial engineering. It's proven technology that is used in multiple critical applications and is accepted as accurate and effective. We're 'new' to it as non elite cyclists, when it's been around in elite circles for a good 12 plus years already. The science of sports science is also relatively new, at least in it's accessibility to the general public. However, what we can say for sure is that controlling of the variables of training load, and their effects on the?human body are advancing our understanding of what we are capable of. NASA didn't go down this route because it was fun and exciting... they wanted to know every possible load that the crew where under, physical and physiological.

?

I've routinely read that PRE, HRM and Power give a 360 degree training view. Physically this is true, to a point. But the oldest adage is still true, and still missing from this equation. Pushing your limits is 10% physical and 90% mental. We can argue over the % all we like but when push comes to shove I've personally witnessed supremely fit people 'rap' or break when mentally tougher but supposedly physically less fit or weaker persons soldier on.

?

The mind is where the truly untapped power is to be found…..

?

[/quote']

 

I could not agree more - but as we make progress in this area I want to be able to measure it...Wink

 

And that's exactly the point. When I used to train with HR it was impossible to measure improvement scientifically. With a PM it is. This means that you can plan when you peak and not just leave it to chance.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As an afterthought I wanted to add tjis quote by top ex physiologist about using a PM or HR as I think it sums things up pretty well;

 

 

 

"I don't think it makes even the tiniest difference, at

least over the long run, whether you prescribe and/or execute your training

based on power, heart rate, perceived exertion, or some combination

thereof.  The simple fact of the matter

is that the types of workouts that you do, and how often you do them, has far,

far more to do with how much you improve (or not), than precisely how you do

them. That's why, for example, I've constantly beaten the drum encouraging

people to think in terms of training *with* a powermeter, vs. simply training

*by* power. That said, however, I think that even when considering *only* how

to prescribe and execute workouts, basing things on power has distinct

advantages over basing them on heart rate and/or perceived exertion: 1) it's

simple, and 2) it keeps people focussed on the true goal, which is to increase

the power that you can produce for a given time, the duration for which you can

produce a given power, and/or the effort required to produce a particular power

for a particular duration. In contrast to this approach, those who train by

heart rate and/or perceived exertion often seem to end up lost in the forest,

simply because they lose sight of what it is they are really trying to

accomplish.

 

 

 

Andy Coggan

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd heard about this study on a club ride a couple of weeks ago and the perception was also that "using a HRM was more effective". Glad that I've read the posting and the thread generally.

 

My take out is that trying to compare two the systems like this does not prove that one system is better than the other but that for this specific test using a HRM is better because of very specific characteristics of HR training.

 

I'd be very interested in seeing a similar test for threshold stuff. Good stuff!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

I'd heard about this study on a club ride a couple of weeks ago and the perception was also that "using a HRM was more effective". Glad that I've read the posting and the thread generally.

 

My take out is that trying to compare two the systems like this does not prove that one system is better than the other but that for this specific test using a HRM is better because of very specific characteristics of HR training.

 

I'd be very interested in seeing a similar test for threshold stuff. Good stuff!

 

 

WB - this is not the case..

 

The two intervals were not the same in terms of workload (NP or TRIMPS) - the front loaded interval that the HR guys carried out was a higher load = greater gains.

 

This is not about HR Vs power but about Iso Vs variable paced intervals

 

I bet that if you look at the interval curve of 99% of riders you will see a front loaded curve - it is thenature of pacing to see guys start harder and then fade..

 

This study really only aims to show that ispower intervals done on an ergometer may be less effective than normally paced ones.

BikeMax2008-04-20 11:10:18

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, that's sort of what I meant (just poorly stated) - that the two were not the same. My comment was in light of the comment along the lines of that restricting oneself to power based thresholds was not as effective as using a HRM. Hence my comment that I'd like to see longer intervals where the time actually spent in the target zones would make the tests more comparable.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Well' date=' that's sort of what I meant (just poorly stated) - that the two were not the same. My comment was in light of the comment along the lines of that restricting oneself to power based thresholds was not as effective as using a HRM. Hence my comment that I'd like to see longer intervals where the time actually spent in the target zones would make the tests more comparable.

[/quote']

 

I think we can be fairly sure that the longer the interval the less the effect he noted would be seen - longer intervals are likely to be far more efficient if paced in an isopower fashion - if you ride a 20 min interval too hard at the outset then the fall off will be more dramatic and the overall load lower  etc etc.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Phew - I'm kinda surprised to see the thread still going but there's obviously some interest here, thanx to both Doc and BikeMax. I'll toss in another penny's worth:

How many of you out there have a track specific SRM? No matter what you think of power training this thing gives you info that you wouldn't believe:

1. You can measure how much wheel spin you're getting on your standing starts and so adjust your body position for maximum traction and acceleration.

2. You can find "hesitation dips" in your flying 200s where you have accidently let the power fall off during acceleration or in the tight turns.

3. You can record specific events (like points races) and duplicate the power profile during training to make sure that you are doing the right kind of workout at the right intensity.

4. You can measure your own power vs cadence profile to select the right gears for each type of race.

5. You can accurately measure the effect of changing the length of your cranks.

6. You can easily see the difference in rolling resistance of different types of tires - dramatic change from average clinchers to good tubbies.

7. You can accurately determine the effects of pursuit bars and body position on TT times.

 

Actually the list goes on and on... The point is that accurate information is useful in making you go faster. And if that is your game then you really need one of these things.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

PM's (and you could include HRM's) are a bit like vitamins' date=' anti-oxidants and all the other unpronounceable gunk that is added to the energy / recovery drinks available on the market, they all sound nice and can be promoted with all sorts of Scientific evidence, but at the end of the day do they really make a difference or do we need them?

 

Take a sport outside of cycling i.e. one that where you cannot use a PM, road running would be a good example, plenty of athletes who don?t even use a HRM there and they manage just fine with their training and racing performance.

 

I'm not knocking either of the 2, suppose you could say that I think that business marketing plays a role in the equation. I have used both PM and HRM in training (and still prefer my HRM).

The best training tool is your brain Wink

[/quote']

I find this approach really hard to understand - to compare an advance in measuring technology to vitamins etc is way off the mark.

It is a bit like saying - leave those new fangled clipless pedals alone, the old straps and clips we ride now are just as good ...

Vitamins, nutritional supplements etc might do what they say they do and they might not, but a device like a power meter simply does what it says - it measures power output.

Whether you think that being able to measure output is of use or not is up to you, but if you look at most fields you will see that advanced technology almost always leads to advancement in progres and performance (Smaller, faster computers, more accurate and powerful telescopes, digital cameras, more accurate measuring devices etc etc etc...)

There have been many examples of new technology that has been introduced to cycling, rejected by the naysayers as marketing hype and then only a few years later universally accepeted as the norm - TT bars, clipless pedals, aero helmets, dual suss MTB, aero wheels, stiffer soled shoes - the list goes on an on.

Just because somebody does well without something does not mean they cannot do better with it.

 

Come on Peter you are exaggerating and perhaps getting paranoid, its amazing how you take offence to anyone who does not agree with your principals. <?: prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

I never said that PM?s should be left alone or implied that they are gimmicks that will disappear in a few years and believe it or not I even have a set of TT bars, clipless pedals, carbon soled shoes, dual susser mtb and used to own a set of carbon Aero wheels (yes I draw the line at owning an aero helmet).

The comparison was not one of comparing a vitamin to a power meter but rather comparing advertising and coaching strategies, i.e. that a power meter is the only reliable way to reach your best fitness level.

What I am saying is that they are not the ?be all? of training tools, but yes if used correctly they can provide excellent information during and after training or racing.

A power meter is a great tool, but TBH compared to a HRM it is lacking, purely in the fact that it can only be used on your bike, whereas my HRM can be used for most sports i.e. swimming and running and you only need to buy 1 HRM at a fraction of the price.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

PM's (and you could include HRM's) are a bit like vitamins' date=' anti-oxidants and all the other unpronounceable gunk that is added to the energy / recovery drinks available on the market, they all sound nice and can be promoted with all sorts of Scientific evidence, but at the end of the day do they really make a difference or do we need them?

 

Take a sport outside of cycling i.e. one that where you cannot use a PM, road running would be a good example, plenty of athletes who don?t even use a HRM there and they manage just fine with their training and racing performance.

 

I'm not knocking either of the 2, suppose you could say that I think that business marketing plays a role in the equation. I have used both PM and HRM in training (and still prefer my HRM).

The best training tool is your brain Wink

[/quote']

 

I find this approach really hard to understand - to compare an advance in measuring technology to vitamins etc is way off the mark.

 

It is a bit like saying - leave those new fangled clipless pedals alone, the old straps and clips we ride now are just as good ...

 

Vitamins, nutritional supplements etc might do what they say they do and they might not, but a device like a power meter simply does what it says - it measures power output.

 

Whether you think that being able to measure output is of use or not is up to you, but if you look at most fields you will see that advanced technology almost always leads to advancement in progres and performance (Smaller, faster computers, more accurate and powerful telescopes, digital cameras, more accurate measuring devices etc etc etc...)

 

There have been many examples of new technology that has been introduced to cycling, rejected by the naysayers as marketing hype and then only a few years later universally accepeted as the norm - TT bars, clipless pedals, aero helmets, dual suss MTB, aero wheels, stiffer soled shoes - the list goes on an on.

 

Just because somebody does well without something does not mean they cannot do better with it.

 

Come on Peter you are exaggerating and perhaps getting paranoid, its amazing how you take offence to anyone who does not agree with your principals.

I never said that PM?s should be left alone or implied that they are gimmicks that will disappear in a few years and believe it or not I even have a set of TT bars, clipless pedals, carbon soled shoes, dual susser mtb and used to own a set of carbon Aero wheels (yes I draw the line at owning an aero helmet).

The comparison was not one of comparing a vitamin to a power meter but rather comparing advertising and coaching strategies, i.e. that a power meter is the only reliable way to reach your best fitness level.

What I am saying is that they are not the ?be all? of training tools, but yes if used correctly they can provide excellent information during and after training or racing.

A power meter is a great tool, but TBH compared to a HRM it is lacking, purely in the fact that it can only be used on your bike, whereas my HRM can be used for most sports i.e. swimming and running and you only need to buy 1 HRM at a fraction of the price.

 

 

No offence was taken - nor am I paranoid.

 

What I object to is a poorly drawn comparison and the accompanying insinuation -  that the technology we are talking about is in some way similar to a marketing driven and unproven product. Perhaps you need to re read your first paragraph - you certainly do seem to imply they are ginmmicks pretty clearly as far as I can see...

 

"PM's

(and you could include HRM's) are a bit like vitamins, anti-oxidants

and all the other unpronounceable gunk that is added to the energy /

recovery drinks available on the market, they all sound nice and can be

promoted with all sorts of Scientific evidence, but at the end of the

day do they really make a difference or do we need them?"

 

Power meters have certainly not been marketing driven and have never been touted as the only way to train - if the question is "are they the best tool for measuring your progress in cycling and achieving the most efficiency in your training" then IMO the answer is yes. To draw a comparison with running and using that as a benefit to training with HR is way off the issue that this thread is discussing - this is a cycling forum remember.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Settings My Forum Content My Followed Content Forum Settings Ad Messages My Ads My Favourites My Saved Alerts My Pay Deals Help Logout