niterider Posted June 9, 2007 Share It would appear ( if I understand what Carmichael and Burke say) that wattage per say is an added and beneficial tool. It does not replace heart rate measurement but should rather be used in conjuction with it. Once you've started using a powermeter you won't give HR a second glance. Its redundant and tells you very little. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whitesox Posted June 9, 2007 Share Thats a bold statement, niterider. Pantani rarely used a computer and when sponsored a HR monitor, a said he did not need one, just a thought.... Kempo, as someone with a bit of science background, I find it hard to believe that the I-Bike is very accurate, I have read up a litlle on how it works, not gonna bore you with why I say so.Nonetheless, it does give power readings that can be used as a reference during training, and yes, I think you should use that with heart rate... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BikeMax Posted June 9, 2007 Share It would appear ( if I understand what Carmichael and Burke say) that wattage per say is an added and beneficial tool. It does not replace heart rate measurement but should rather be used in conjuction with it. Rather than simply accepting what Carmichael and Burke say - why not look at the facts ? Maybe science has moved on a little ... Wattage is a direct measure of output. HR is a measure of the body's response to that output - affected by many other variables. Given the chance to measure something directly as opposed to indirectly, which do you think is better ? Whitesox - a question for you: If it takes 300w (for arguments sake) over 3 hours to win a race, and you are able to put out that 300w, do you care what your HR is doing ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whitesox Posted June 9, 2007 Share No you don't you are racing and want to win regardless... Training is a very different story. Heart rate changes daily due to a variety of factors. But, you don't simply want to monitor the output you are producing during training, you want to monitor both your output (performace) and physiological progress. Its not merely about putting out watts. Lets say you have had a very hard week of training, you only using a power meter. You cant produce the power you are use to. What now? Use HR as reference... Or, when in good form, it could be very useful to determine at what HR you produce peak power. You can even roughly determine lactate thresholds etc etc. Add physiological testing such as VO2max. peak power, lactate to the equation and power combined with heart rate as training tools take on a whole new dimension. Using power alone as your only training tool would be fooloish. It would be like zooping up your Golf GTI with no regard for the consequences to the machine or disregarding the fact that you could be able to zoop the thing up even more, and with careful tweeking get the maximum out of it. You cant just rev the engine into the red and keep it there, the body is the same. That said, HR is used incorrectly, I feel by most. It's useless in most instances during a race, so is power for that matter. It should be used to measure progress and compare intensities both during and between sessions. Just my opinion.whitesox2007-06-09 17:40:18 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whitesox Posted June 9, 2007 Share Just an interesting fact... Pantani attacks Lance in the Alps, he's angry, the pace is astonishing. Postal panics. Should they chase? Bruyneel phones the infamous Dr Ferrari and asks his advice. The good Dr takes into account Pantani's weight, the slope etc and what he knows about Lance (power, lactate threshold etc). He phones Bruyneel back, says Pantani will blow, let him hang. What happens? Pantani blows, Lance puts time into everybody. Powerfull, if used correctly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
niterider Posted June 9, 2007 Share Thats a bold statement' date=' niterider.[/quote'] Train and race with a powermeter, and you'll realise the validity of this very quickly. Its a VERY common conclusion amongst powermeter users. Why measure something indirectly when you can measure it directly? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
niterider Posted June 9, 2007 Share Just an interesting fact... Pantani attacks Lance in the Alps' date=' he's angry, the pace is astonishing. Postal panics. Should they chase? Bruyneel phones the infamous Dr Ferrari and asks his advice. The good Dr takes into account Pantani's weight, the slope etc and what he knows about Lance (power, lactate threshold etc). He phones Bruyneel back, says Pantani will blow, let him hang. What happens? Pantani blows, Lance puts time into everybody. Powerfull, if used correctly.[/quote'] And if he'd been looking at HR, he may have been fooled into thinking that he wasn't going too hard, since due to fatigue from the tour his sustainable max HR had dropped 10% and he may have been reading 85% instead of the 95% he's used to seeing at threshold (numbers made up, but you get the point). Looking at power only, he would have known the output that he should be able to maintain for the duration of the climb. HR is irrelevant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BikeMax Posted June 10, 2007 Share No you don't you are racing and want to win regardless... Training is a very different story. Heart rate changes daily due to a variety of factors. But' date=' you don't simply want to monitor the output you are producing during training, you want to monitor both your output (performace) and physiological progress. Its not merely about putting out watts. Lets say you have had a very hard week of training, you only using a power meter. You cant produce the power you are use to. What now? [/quote'] Good point - and exactly why HR is flawed as a guide to training intensity. After a hard week of riding, HR is supressed - trying to ride at a certain %age of max (at much reduced output) will likely result in over doing it and fatigue for very little gain. Using power it is easy to see fatigue - you simply cannot make the power output and have to rest Use HR as reference... Or' date=' when in good form, it could be very useful to determine at what HR you produce peak power. You can even roughly determine lactate thresholds etc etc. [/quote'] What relevance is the HR at which you put out max power ? What benefit is lactate threshold ? (unless you carry a portable tester in a race..) Add physiological testing such as VO2max. peak power' date=' lactate to the equation and power combined with heart rate as training tools take on a whole new dimension. [/quote'] Why ? Using power alone as your only training tool would be fooloish. It would be like zooping up your Golf GTI with no regard for the consequences to the machine or disregarding the fact that you could be able to zoop the thing up even more' date=' and with careful tweeking get the maximum out of it. You cant just rev the engine into the red and keep it there, the body is the same. [/quote'] Not a great analogy - if you zoop up a car then it has a bigger engine/capacity and is able to do the speed you ask of it without consequences - it is designed for the job. The body is far more variable and complex and the fact remains that it will onlyoutput the power if it is able to do so (regardless of HR) - and this is all that matters. If you are too fatigued, stressed, hot, etc etc then your body will not produce the same power as under normal circumstances and as such will tell you what is going on (accurately) and allow you to act accordingly. HR will not give you this info - in fact you would not even know your power was compromised and would ride on in ignorance in most cases. That said' date=' HR is used incorrectly, I feel by most. It's useless in most instances during a race, so is power for that matter. [/quote']Not sure about that - in a break, deciding whether or not to work... It should be used to measure progress and compare intensities both during and between sessions. Just my opinion. Agree with that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whitesox Posted June 10, 2007 Share Firstly the % age max HR is not accurate... You say you simply cannot make the power and have to rest? How many riders don't try and push themselves when they aren't riding at levels they normally do. Hence, HR should ALSO be used. It's a measure of what is happening to the body, not merely what the body is doing. The relevance of HR at peak power, would give you an indication progress. You may be able to produce more watts at lower HR or the the same watts at lower HR, etc etc. Instead of just riding at a certain wattage, you may be able to improve quicker and monitor progress. Even handy in working out interval sessions... Think outside the box, you need not have to measure LT during a race. Use it as a training tool, a test every 2-3 months will give you an indication at what HR and wattage this lies. If a rider can improve this it could have great benefits. HR does indicate stress, fatigue heat etc. You should just know what to look for. By combining HR and power it would be easier to for instance delay fatigue. I do agree though that too much should not always be read into HR, or power for that matter. You get graet days and awful ones. If you have to decide whether or not to work in a braek, you are probably not strong enough anyway, besides if you are Malcolm Lange... whitesox2007-06-10 07:28:43 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
niterider Posted June 10, 2007 Share The relevance of HR at peak power' date=' would give you an indication progress. You may be able to produce more watts at lower HR or the the same watts at lower HR, etc etc. Instead of just riding at a certain wattage, you may be able to improve quicker and monitor progress.[/quote'] Progress of what? The only progress you should be interested in is the ability to hold a certain power for a certain duration. That's what will determine whether you make the break, or how far inside your comfort zone you are, when you're in the break. If your max power for a given duration is rising, then you're making progress. The HR at which you produce that power has no bearing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BikeMax Posted June 10, 2007 Share Firstly the % age max HR is not accurate... You say you simply cannot make the power and have to rest? How many riders don't try and push themselves when they aren't riding at levels they normally do. Hence' date=' HR should ALSO be used. It's a measure of what is happening to the body, not merely what the body is doing. [/quote'] Not sure your argument stacks up - of course riders try to push themselves but that does not add any weight to the argument that HR should be used. By using power as a guide to intensity you have an accurate method to prevent over reaching - instead of struggling through an interval at, say 85% MHR and being 20w lower than normal due to fatigue, you are able to make a quick and easy decision to take a rest day. What is happening to the body is subject to too many other variables that are impossible to take into account when training. Did you know for example that the bodies response to an exercise load will be a certain HR, but that this HR response may be varied by the body in terms of beats oer minute AND stroke volume - in other words the bodies response to a specific load may vary under certain conditions. A HRM only measures beat rate and so you are already missing a part of the equation... What about another example - have you ever noticed that different cadences elicit different HR response - even though the power output remains constant ? The relevance of HR at peak power' date=' would give you an indication progress. You may be able to produce more watts at lower HR or the the same watts at lower HR, etc etc. Instead of just riding at a certain wattage, you may be able to improve quicker and monitor progress. Even handy in working out interval sessions... [/quote'] How can you measure progress as power to HR ratio when you cannot ensure that the conditions that elicited one HR response are the same as another - you might be more or less tired, stressed etc when trying to measure progress. Given that performance on a bicycle is a direct result of power over a given duration (I presume you are not going to argue that point) then what better way to measure progress than to track power/duration over a variety of relevant durations ? Think outside the box' date=' you need not have to measure LT during a race. Use it as a training tool, a test every 2-3 months will give you an indication at what HR and wattage this lies. If a rider can improve this it could have great benefits. [/quote'] Maybe you need to learn to think inside the box befoe trying to move outside of it - explain to me what relevance testing LT in the field has - what are you going to do with that info ? Who cares at what HR your LT power lies - the main point is that it is increasing... (irrespective of HR - in fact many riders find that their LT HR increases with training) So if power over a given duration can be tested and then improved then that is all we need. HR does indicate stress' date=' fatigue heat etc. You should just know what to look for. By combining HR and power it would be easier to for instance delay fatigue. I do agree though that too much should not always be read into HR, or power for that matter. You get graet days and awful ones. [/quote'] You don't need to look for these variables if you measure output directly so why confuse the issue. If you have to decide whether or not to work in a braek' date=' you are probably not strong enough anyway, besides if you are Malcolm Lange... [/quote'] You know better than that - whether you miss turns or soft pedal can make a huge difference to a race winning situation. Knowing you are in over your head may even influence a decision to drop out of a break.BikeMax2007-06-10 08:48:22 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THE BODY CENTRE Posted June 10, 2007 Share fascinating sunday afternoon reading. thanks bikemax. In your experience how many people go back to pure HR training after having experienced the safety and efficacy of training with power? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BikeMax Posted June 10, 2007 Share fascinating sunday afternoon reading. thanks bikemax. In your experience how many people go back to pure HR training after having experienced the safety and efficacy of training with power? Very few in my experience - and I also find that the majority of PM users look at HR less and less as time progresses and they see the benefits of training with power, and the lack of any real extra benefit that HR provides ( in many cases it simply muddies the water and can undermine a session very easily) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bruce Posted June 10, 2007 Share Bikemax, you have the patience of a saint Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whitesox Posted June 10, 2007 Share I on the other hand don't have that patience or time to keep arguing. As for HR not alwys being the same under the same circumstances. I have mentioned that before. What about another example - have you ever noticed that different cadences elicit different HR response - even though the power output remains constant ?What are you trying to say? This is common knowledge and a whole dedate on it's own... Don't you think that with training as you become able to produce more power, that LT should in fact increase? Is this not what we want? A higher LT? As for application in the field, both HR and power output at LT are important guidelinesin training. You can't merely watch power output in a braek, you may feel crap, and still be stronger than the rest... But yes, missing turns or soft pedalling could help, still you need to be strongest an smartest. Are you not undermining a session when you quit because you camnnot produce adequate power? HR, and power for that matter only muddies the water when you don't know what you are doing. It's easy to measure, but can interpret your data. This is not always easy with HR, but does not mean it should be disregarded. Power is a measure of output, of what the body is doing. HR (and LT) is a measure of what is happening to the body while you are doing it. I feel that both HR and Power are amazing training tools. But they don't in all instances measure the same thing. However when used together, they are more powerfull (excuse the pun) than on their own. I rest my case. If you feel you want to discuss this more PM me and we can arrange a meeting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THE BODY CENTRE Posted June 10, 2007 Share Just for interest sake whitesox, what kind of PM do you race (and obviously train) with? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now