Power and heart rate monitors

[Slowbee]

 

Surely Dt Suess' date=' weekends are designed for JRA?

[/quote']

agreed,  but i have VDW (very demanding wife)

 

JRA + VDW = KFC  

[BikeMax]

 

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' date=' 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.

[/quote']

 

If (and that is an IF) the ramped strategy is the way to go for short intervals, then why not use RPE - much more effective than HR in determining intensity IMO - start out hard and ease off...

 

 

 

[Rocket Man]

BikeMax, for amateurs like me can you explain the acronyms that u'r using?

[BikeMax]

 

BikeMax' date=' for amateurs like me can you explain the acronyms that u'r using? [/quote']

 

You don't come across as much of an amateur to me ..

 

Sorry about the acronyms - trainng with power is sometimes referred to as training "acronymically" ...

 

I can't remember which ones I have used but if you let me know then I'll gladly explain.

 

[The Doctor]

Rocket man:

To determine whether a result is statistically significant, there are a number of factors that are taken into account.

Two important characteristic in biological systems are the within subject variability and the measurement error of the ergometer you use.

The within subject error varies depending on how tightly controlled the testing conditions are. We conducted a study last year where subjects were asked to perform a VO2max test and 40km TT at weekly intervals for 5 weeks. They were blinded to their performance and therefore could not pace themselves. The variation in test performance in this type of study is a combination of measurement error within subject variation. It therefore provides a practical value to gauge changes over time.

 

The co-efficients of variation (standard deviation / mean) for both tests were less than 1%.

 

Previous research has shown that a change of approximately 1% is a meaningful difference in cycling.

 

A change in performance paramater of more than 2% is therefore significant (1% with 1% varation = 2% to be sure that the result is meaningful)

 

The questions that you are posting are making the assumption that the research is conducted in a Micky mouse fashion. We consider and control for nearly every possible variable during the research. Only then can you be sure that what you are seeing is in fact correct.

 

I won't respond to each individual question as my fingers are starting to bleed from all the typing.

 

Peter:

 

We have done lots of Central governor studies using perceived exertion. There is about a 10min lag in RPE which makes it fairly impractical for use in interval training.

 

[BikeMax]

 

Rocket man:

To determine whether a result is statistically significant' date=' there are a number of factors that are taken into account.

Two important characteristic in biological systems are the within subject variability and the measurement error of the ergometer you use.

The within subject error varies depending on how tightly controlled the testing conditions are. We conducted a study last year where subjects were asked to perform a VO2max test and 40km TT at weekly intervals for 5 weeks. They were blinded to their performance and therefore could not pace themselves. The variation in test performance in this type of study is a combination of measurement error within subject variation. It therefore provides a practical value to gauge changes over time.

 

The co-efficients of variation (standard deviation / mean) for both tests were less than 1%.

 

Previous research has shown that a change of approximately 1% is a meaningful difference in cycling.

 

A change in performance paramater of more than 2% is therefore significant (1% with 1% varation = 2% to be sure that the result is meaningful)

 

The questions that you are posting are making the assumption that the research is conducted in a Micky mouse fashion. We consider and control for nearly every possible variable during the research. Only then can you be sure that what you are seeing is in fact correct.

 

I won't respond to each individual question as my fingers are starting to bleed from all the typing.

 

Peter:

 

We have done lots of Central governor studies using perceived exertion. There is about a 10min lag in RPE which makes it fairly impractical for use in interval training.

 

[/quote']

 

Thanks Doc - very interesting paper and stimulating debate - all good stuff.

 

I have found that when I prescribe intervals using RPE that I generally get better results when I add the "descriptor" factor of how I want the athlete to feel during the interval - having done many of these intervals I can describe how they should feel and this makes the transition for the athlete easier.

 

[Willehond]

OK, after reading all of this, I fear that most Hubbers (less technically inclined than you propeller heads) will only take one line from this:  That HR training is more effective than power based training.

 

Even though you go into lots of detail here I think it gets lost that you are talking about a very specific scenario.  The fact that HR lags power output is known fact and if you try to get HR up to your lactate threshold then you will use more power than you would if you used a power based target.  Hence more benefit, but only IF YOU BASE YOUR TRAINING PURELY ON A TIME BASED TARGET ZONE.  When you do intervals at LT are you not supposed to keep it below the threshold so that you get benefit, but also recover quicker, otherwise why not just shoot right past to your anaerobic threshold and get even greater benefit?  If you go over your LT whilst following HR based training, your recovery will be longer and your ability to push yourself reduced the following day?  So if you do train harder it is great, but if it affects your training the next day is it really better?

 

Anyway, power based training helped me quantify my effort a lot better and is a huge moiviating mechanism.  Seeing your stats helps you to push harder on sprints, training sessions and general intervals.  That might sound weird to you lab rats, but it is true.  Trying to hit your 1 minute/20 second/ 5minute max power is way more motivational than just 'going for it' in a lamp post sprint.  Power rules, get used to it.

[Rocket Man]

Excellent Doc, thanks for taking the time to respond.

 

I deal with research into machine performance and that's got a whole lot fewer variables than humans....just love this kind of stuff tho'.

 

[Guest colonel]

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

[AuctionLamb]

and I still say PM SUCKS!!!! OVERATED AND OVERPRICED!!!

[Willehond]

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!

[Willehond]

and I still say PM SUCKS!!!! OVERATED AND OVERPRICED!!!

 

What are you moaning about?  You are already fast enough.  Go and play domestique somewhere else.  Off with you!

[BikeMax]

 

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

 

Shall I cancel your order ?

 

[BikeMax]

 

OK' date=' after reading all of this, I fear that most Hubbers (less technically inclined than you propeller heads) will only take one line from this:  That HR training is more effective than power based training.

 

[/quote']

 

WH - I don't think that this thread comes across that way, if guys take the time to read it they will see that.

 

Let's not forget that training (sessions, planning, intervals) and how you measure output are two very diffeent things.

 

It will always be better to measure something accurately and directly than otherwise, so in that respect a Power meter will always be better than a HR monitor for measuring and prescribing cycling performance - just like a thermometer is a better way of measuring temp than sticking your finger in..

 

The Doc is speculating / discussing the way in which you train and how you construct an interval - which IMO is valid but removed from how you measure it (and that's where I think the study may be giving the wrong impression as you say)

 

All good stimulating debate..

 

[Guest colonel]

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!

 

Only if you knew how close the Doc and I were you would change that statement.

[Guest colonel]

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

Shall I cancel your order ?

 

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!!