iBike power meter

[TitusTi]

But isn't that the point? To stress your body to it's own personal limits as at that particular point? Just a question as I don't use either?

[epoh]

 

I thought about this for some time' date=' I think one should have HR as well as power sessions. Seperately... So one day youl so HR training, keeping constant for aerobic, and next day, power, where you don't care where the HR go, so doing power endurance if I may call it that. And the same with intervals... don't think you can just say you won't do HR training anymore.[/quote']

 

Cervelo - I am afraid I do not follow your logic here at all ?

 

Both HR and Power are used as metrics for measuring exercise intensity. Power is a direct and accurate measurement of exercise intensity whereas HR is a measure of the body's response to exercise intensity.

 

HR has many flaws, including;

 

1. It only measures the body's response to training

 

2. It is subject to many non exercise intensity based variables (Temp, hydration, fatigue etc)

 

Your assumption that "aerobic" type training would be better suited to HR is misguided - steady aerobic training is still better measured by riding within a range of power than by a range of HR. You are far more likely to stay in the correct zones when using an accurate, direct and responsive measure of the intensity of the session than using an indirect measure of the body's response to the intensity of the session.

 

Well let's say you are very fit and your max hr is 190 and you train at avg. 165 regardless of how you feel for 2 hours over a very undulating road.. chances are that you are probably training at a relatively high intensity..

 

 

[Boonie]

Not correct - the PT has an accuracy of +/- 1.5% (Claimed)

Claimed?

[bruce]

 

I thought about this for some time' date=' I think one should have HR as well as power sessions. Seperately... So one day youl so HR training, keeping constant for aerobic, and next day, power, where you don't care where the HR go, so doing power endurance if I may call it that. And the same with intervals... don't think you can just say you won't do HR training anymore.[/quote']

 

What do you see the benefit of HR over Power is?  In what situations is measuring HR more appropriate than power?

 

 

[pastapouch]

Because it wont' help you much if you're super strong and you don't have the areobic capacity. Unless you're a bodybuilder, superstrong and can't climb a little hill, and then they die of oxygen debt... just my 2c worth.

[Boonie]

Power is the most important thing! But it should be used correctly and with HR. Power alone will not make you the best, but power and HR can.

[bruce]

 

Because it wont' help you much if you're super strong and you don't have the areobic capacity. Unless you're a bodybuilder' date=' superstrong and can't climb a little hill, and then they die of oxygen debt... just my 2c worth.

[/quote']

 

Cervelo, you are confusing power with strength, they are not the same.

 

In essence power = torque (strength) x cadence (speed)

 

Endurance = how long you can produce power.

 

[BikeMax]

 

I thought about this for some time' date=' I think one should have HR as well as power sessions. Seperately... So one day youl so HR training, keeping constant for aerobic, and next day, power, where you don't care where the HR go, so doing power endurance if I may call it that. And the same with intervals... don't think you can just say you won't do HR training anymore.[/quote']

 

Cervelo - I am afraid I do not follow your logic here at all ?

 

Both HR and Power are used as metrics for measuring exercise intensity. Power is a direct and accurate measurement of exercise intensity whereas HR is a measure of the body's response to exercise intensity.

 

HR has many flaws, including;

 

1. It only measures the body's response to training

 

2. It is subject to many non exercise intensity based variables (Temp, hydration, fatigue etc)

 

Your assumption that "aerobic" type training would be better suited to HR is misguided - steady aerobic training is still better measured by riding within a range of power than by a range of HR. You are far more likely to stay in the correct zones when using an accurate, direct and responsive measure of the intensity of the session than using an indirect measure of the body's response to the intensity of the session.

 

Well let's say you are very fit and your max hr is 190 and you train at avg. 165 regardless of how you feel for 2 hours over a very undulating road.. chances are that you are probably training at a relatively high intensity..

 

 

Not really sure what you are getting at here.. but in fact your point does demonstrate why HR training is flawed - in your scenario you may well be fatigued and as such putting out a relatively low power for the HR or effort level you are riding at. This is how many people ride themselves into a hole of fatigue. If on the other hand, you are riding to a set range of power - then if you are too tired to achieve this level then you know that rest might be a good idea today..

 

Lets break it down - if you know what your threshold power is you can then calculate training zones to elicit certain training effects.

 

If you then set out on a session to achieve a certain training effect, let's say to increase aerobic endurance - then you can set out to ride in the zone that will elicit that response. The HR response to that is not really of any relevance because, if you are able to ride for the desired duration in the correct zone, then the training effect will be achieved.

 

[BikeMax]

 

Power is the most important thing! But it should be used correctly and with HR. Power alone will not make you the best' date=' but power and HR can.[/quote']

 

Please explain how you come to this conclusion ?

 

 

 

[BikeMax]

 

Not correct - the PT has an accuracy of +/- 1.5% (Claimed)

Claimed?

 

All the power meter accuracy figures are "claimed"

 

[BikeMax]

 

But isn't that the point? To stress your body to it's own personal limits as at that particular point? Just a question as I don't use either?

 

Isn't what the point ?

 

Training does not always mean stressing your body to it's limits - there are many training effects that can be had at or below your personal limits.

 

[Boonie]

It doesn't help you can ride a 4h endurance ride on 5watts a kg but your HR is at 250. You will never make it. your heart needs to be trained aswell

[TitusTi]

I meant in each particular zone.

[pastapouch]

So bruce/bikemax, you tell me you'll do all training based on power??

[epoh]

 

 

 

Well let's say you are very fit and your max hr is 190 and you train at avg. 165 regardless of how you feel for 2 hours over a very undulating road.. chances are that you are probably training at a relatively high intensity..

 

 

Not really sure what you are getting at here.. but in fact your point does demonstrate why HR training is flawed - in your scenario you may well be fatigued and as such putting out a relatively low power for the HR or effort level you are riding at. This is how many people ride themselves into a hole of fatigue. If on the other hand' date=' you are riding to a set range of power - then if you are too tired to achieve this level then you know that rest might be a good idea today..

 

Lets break it down - if you know what your threshold power is you can then calculate training zones to elicit certain training effects.

 

If you then set out on a session to achieve a certain training effect, let's say to increase aerobic endurance - then you can set out to ride in the zone that will elicit that response. The HR response to that is not really of any relevance because, if you are able to ride for the desired duration in the correct zone, then the training effect will be achieved.

[/quote']

 

I agree with you there. Although I do not train with power or follow a training program for that matter, I understand the very basic principles of power training. Thx to you and Bruch

 

 

 

All I am saying is you will be training at some level of intensity

based on the scenario I posted, whether you are fatigued or not.

Whether it will be of any benefit to you is another question.

 

 

 

 

[BikeMax]

 

I meant in each particular zone.

 

Not really - for example the L4 Threshold zone is 95-105% of threshold power (FTP)

 

FTP can be trained very effectively at 95% of FTP with a lower stress load and the ability to extend the duration and in turn recover faster.

 

The higher zones like L5 V02 or L6 are more sensitive to being closer to the top of the range.