iBike power meter

[BikeMax]

 

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' date=' 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.

[/quote']

 

You are clearly quite sure of your position... as an educated person it is up to you to do the relevant reading and research and draw your own conclusions (which you appear to have already done)

 

I am guessing that you do not train with a power meter, and maybe we can talk again after you have done so for a period of time (if you do choose to do so)

 

In the meantime good luck with your training.

 

[whitesox]

Are you offering to sponsor me one?

One should be open to new ideas and methods, always, and to think of ways to improve the old ones...

Good luck to you too!

whitesox2007-06-10 14:34:05

[whitesox]

Ronelle, I don't have a PM on my bike, thats irrelavant. I am able to do measured power training, not on my bike though.

 

My choice would be SRM, if money was no option.

whitesox2007-06-10 14:39:00

[kempo]

I consulted the guru himself- Joe Friel.  One of his colleagues Adam Zucco replied: "I think they are both important. HR is input and power is output so they are
different measurements. They are most powerful when used together. how many
watts you put out is one thing, but HR will tell you some of the
physiological "cost" it took you to expend those watts. HR is also very
useful, but power will tell you how productive each beat is. At the end of
the day when looking just at the bike, usually the more watts you average
they fast you go. But again, it doesn't tell you on its own if the athlete
will be able to move when they get off the bike. :)" and Joe Friel says he has it spot on. 

 

I feel exactly the same.  You need HR so that you know how You the athlete are responding to whatever you are putting out.

[whitesox]

The point I was trying to make.

Thanx.

[BikeMax]

 

 

The point I was trying to make.

Thanx.

 

You are very sure of your position, and I am happy to accept that.

 

My one request is that, after a fair period of time (say 6 months) of both training with, and coaching an athlete with a power meter, that you agree to review this thread and post your findings.

 

As a close I want to post a reply that Kempo got to a question re this issue, on Wattage forums. The guy (Alex Simmons) who replied is one of the leading coaches in Australia and it summarises my thinking on the topic;

 

"I think you'll get the range of views similar to the spectrum you've

outlined.

Use what you think is important information to help you train/coach I

say.  That may include an athlete's HR.

I personally don't train or coach with HR (unless I have no choice)

and don't even wear a HR strap.  It just didn't tell me much.

Sometimes fatigue would be on days with high HR, other days suppressed

HR.  For me personally, it was inconsistent as a guide to intensity on

a bike but others may be different.  Power has been a godsend.

However, I don't dissuade athletes from using their HR recording, you

just never know when a medical issue might be picked up.

I would rather rely on athlete's diary notes than HR to validate signs

the power data is telling me (e.g. no further gains being made,

trouble with completing set workouts etc).  And when combined with the

Performance Manager, that's a pretty powerful set of data to work

with.

Alex "

BikeMax2007-06-11 23:47:25

[bruce]

I was wondering if kempo was going to post that response.  Alex is a very well respected coach and rider.

bruce2007-06-11 23:50:03

[Formerly known as easy rider]

Testing Bike Max's patience (again!)

 

Bikemax I'm not having a dig ,just trying to understand the power/hr/lactate "thing" .

 

Why if what you say is true do the pro's spend time bothering with power,hr and lactate testing?

 

I understand that if you ride at a xyz watts for an hour you are training at xyz watts for an hour,and if you can't sustain xyz watts for an hour,you can't. fine.

 

But isn't HR the best and most convenient way to measure the bodies response to the sustained effort of the ride? (Yes I have had rides that have felt good and yet my HR has been very high.)

 

I have found that the lower my resting HR,the fitter(faster) I become.

 

I have also found that too much riding at high heart rates makes me weaker. This also gives me a higher resting HR.

 

I have been lead to believe that the best way to train is to get the lactate/power/hr thing tested and base training on hr.

 

Is this just for convenience/economy's sake?

Why do the so called fundies use LT to determine "training Zones"?

[bruce]

Testing Bike Max's patience (again!)

 

Bikemax I'm not having a dig ' date='just trying to understand the power/hr/lactate "thing" .

 

Why if what you say is true do the pro's spend time bothering with power,hr and lactate testing?

 

I understand that if you ride at a xyz watts for an hour you are training at xyz watts for an hour,and if you can't sustain xyz watts for an hour,you can't. fine.

 

But isn't HR the best and most convenient way to measure the bodies response to the sustained effort of the ride? (Yes I have had rides that have felt good and yet my HR has been very high.)

 

I have found that the lower my resting HR,the fitter(faster) I become.

 

I have also found that too much riding at high heart rates makes me weaker. This also gives me a higher resting HR.

 

I have been lead to believe that the best way to train is to get the lactate/power/hr thing tested and base training on hr.

 

Is this just for convenience/economy's sake?

Why do the so called fundies use LT to determine "training Zones"?

[/quote']

 

HR does respond to exercise intensity, no arguments there.  Unfortunately, as you have pointed out, HR also responds to other factors such as hydration, body temp, etc.  These other factors can cause HR to be a different number every time you ride.  Unfortunately these other factors are not indicators of exercise intensity and as a result muddy the waters.  Power is the true indicator of intensity and fitness (fitness is a measure of the bodies ability to do work, and work is power x time)  So, why not just measure the one variable that we are interested in, instead of another variable that is influenced by factors oiutside of exercise intensity.

bruce2007-06-12 00:28:45

[BikeMax]

 

 

Testing Bike Max's patience (again!)

 

Bikemax I'm not having a dig ' date='just trying to understand the power/hr/lactate "thing" .

 

 

Why if what you say is true do the pro's spend time bothering with power,hr and lactate testing?

 

[/quote']

 

 

 

Pro's may not be the best example of training efficiently or

scientifically - with 40 hours per week to ride there is a bit of room

for everything...

 

Seriously though, cycling is steeped in tradition in the pro ranks, and

a lot of the trainers are ex pro's who gre up on older principles. More and more pro teams are using power as the main guide to training intensity and measuring training load (CSC, Telkom, Lotto)

 

Lactate testing does give valuable info to a trained scientist but has little use on the road while training or to a regular rider looking to train efficiently.

 

 

 

I understand that if you ride at a xyz watts for an hour you are training at xyz watts for an hour' date='and if you can't sustain xyz watts for an hour,you can't. fine.

 

But isn't HR the best and most convenient way to measure the bodies response to the sustained effort of the ride? (Yes I have had rides that have felt good and yet my HR has been very high.)

 

[/quote']

 

Yes it is - but we do not need this information to train effectively. The information it gives you tends to muddy the waters due to the various other extraneous factors mentioned.

 

 

 

I have found that the lower my resting HR' date='the fitter(faster) I become.

 

I have also found that too much riding at high heart rates makes me weaker. This also gives me a higher resting HR.

 

[/quote']

 

I would suggest fatigued and not weaker (only temporarily so)

 

 

 

I have been lead to believe that the best way to train is to get the lactate/power/hr thing tested and base training on hr.

 

Is this just for convenience/economy's sake?

Why do the so called fundies use LT to determine "training Zones"?

 

No need to do 2 of those three - measure the power effectively and use it to set accurate zones to use for training.

 

Fundies - none of the ones I know do it this way

BikeMax2007-06-12 00:34:40

[kempo]

Look-this is going to go in circles all day everyday.  We all know the your HR can't tell you how many watts you can push, but your watts also can't tell you what your HR is.

 

Therefore, like I said before-they are both training tools in our toolbox and we should use all the tools we have to become the best we can.

 

 

[Christie]

What makes a car/bike/airplane move (or to change its energy state)? The ability to do work. Work is defined as the transfer of energy, and scientifically defined as force times distance. (this is already sounding like cycling, not so?) Power is defined as work done over time.

Getting to the point quickly: if you measure your power, you measure the physical phenomenon needed to move your bike. No other parameter can or will become a better or more direct indication of the body's ability to move a bike, unless the laws of physics change.

 

Heart rate is an earlier attempt to measure power. It is an indirect measure - the idea being measuring number of beats and trying to derive an indication of power from it. However, your heart's sole purpose is not to move a bike, it needs to supply blood to your brain, your body's cooling system, digestive system etc. Thus it is an indirect measure, and is influenced by other factors.

 

Ibike is also an indirect measuring device. Im not familiar with it, but it tries to measure the physical phenomenon acting on a bike & rider to derive power. Not a bad idea, but the measuring these forces accurately are very difficult - drag, friction, wind, change in height.

 

So the options are to measure some factors and then derive power, or to measure power directly. Direct measure power meters are expensive, but a HR monitor with power goody added comes close in price to an entry level power meter. Imo direct measure power meters will not be surpassed as a training tool for a very, very long time - I think the investment is worthwhile.

 

On the question of which is better to train with - I vote for direct power.

Christie2007-06-12 01:30:05

[Brakkies Sport Fotos]

Nou wat was die vraag (original een natuurlik) nou weer.

 

 

 

Maar thanks julle ouens, ons leer baie van power training.

 

 

 

praat maar, ons luister

[Windbreaker]

It's great to read informative and thought provocative threads again with participants that are in disagreement but which hasn't deteriorated into an exchange of personal jibes.

 

This is one area that is still unclear in my mind -  "Is HR a good parallel measure to power".

 

Accepting that HR is affected by a number of external influences let's leave them out of the equation for a minute ...

 

I think Bikemax raised the fact earlier in the thread that pedaling at different cadences but at a steady power output elicits different HR responses.

 

Some cyclists are suited to lower cadences while others are higher revving - surely HR has some part to play in determining what the optimal cadence is for individual cyclist. For example, if you are outputting ftp ideally you would want the HR at threshold too? Again, ignoring the other factors for this case.

 

This may not be an issue for well trained or experienced cyclists but I have been cycling for only 3 years now (using power for 2)  and in reviewing my data I have seen my "optimum" cadence gradually drop as I have ignored HR more & more. I'm not convinced that this is a good thing 'cause when it comes to race time I naturally tend to rev higher and get dropped (often) not when I am outputting more power than I can sustain but when my HR is above threshold for too long.

 

The theory I suppose is that I should determine what my real optimal cadence is and train and race to that in conjunction with power. So there is at least one other input in addition to power.

 

The reason I use power is cause I believe that is much more of a scientific measurement than HR so I am not inclined to go with the idea of "self-selected" cadence. In my case anyway, this is far too a subjective.

 

The question really is whether HR is too unreliable to be used as an input to determine optimal cadence at FTP.

 

But for the record HR is definitely is not a better tool than power!

 

Maybe not related to this topic but the other thing that pure power measurement does not explain adequately or account for is why are there different "types" of riders i.e. climbers vs sprinters for instance.

 

If 2 riders have the same power to weight (one is a big dude and the other is a small dude) then you would expect that they should be able to climb the same but this is not true. I can understand why they don't perform the same on the flats or where the force of the wind is a factor but climbing??

 

 

 

[BikeMax]

 

It's great to read informative and thought provocative threads again with participants that are in disagreement but which hasn't deteriorated into an exchange of personal jibes.

 

This is one area that is still unclear in my mind -  "Is HR a good parallel measure to power".

 

Accepting that HR is affected by a number of external influences let's leave them out of the equation for a minute ...

 

 

 

Not sure you can choose to simply leave them out...

 

 

 

I think Bikemax raised the fact earlier in the thread that pedaling at different cadences but at a steady power output elicits different HR responses.

 

Some cyclists are suited to lower cadences while others are higher revving - surely HR has some part to play in determining what the optimal cadence is for individual cyclist. For example' date=' if you are outputting ftp ideally you would want the HR at threshold too? Again, ignoring the other factors for this case.

 

This may not be an issue for well trained or experienced cyclists but I have been cycling for only 3 years now (using power for 2)  and in reviewing my data I have seen my "optimum" cadence gradually drop as I have ignored HR more & more. I'm not convinced that this is a good thing 'cause when it comes to race time I naturally tend to rev higher and get dropped (often) not when I am outputting more power than I can sustain but when my HR is above threshold for too long.

 

The theory I suppose is that I should determine what my real optimal cadence is and train and race to that in conjunction with power. So there is at least one other input in addition to power.

 

The reason I use power is cause I believe that is much more of a scientific measurement than HR so I am not inclined to go with the idea of "self-selected" cadence. In my case anyway, this is far too a subjective.

 

The question really is whether HR is too unreliable to be used as an input to determine optimal cadence at FTP.

 

 

[/quote']

 

Optimal cadence has been shown to be the cadence at which you develop the most power given the duration you are riding. Your cadence will have dropped because you find it easier to develop more power at this cadence. Why do we need to know what your HR is doing at FTP -  if you can ride at that power for the necessary duration then surely that is sufficient information ? (As we know already, HR at FTP may be influenced by many other things and so we cannot make a meaningful comparison)

 

I would suggest that you get dropped, not because of the cadence you are racing at but because you are unable to make the necessary power over the duration you need - your increased cadence may simply be an attempt to output more power.

 

Cadence is not another factor to be considered, as in most cases you can forget about it and let your body decide at what cadence optimum power is produced at that time (studies have proven that you can trust it will do this) - so the question of which HR will elicit optimal cadence at FTP is a moot point - just forget about it and let your body decide.

 

 

 

But for the record HR is definitely is not a better tool than power!

 

Maybe not related to this topic but the other thing that pure power measurement does not explain adequately or account for is why are there different "types" of riders i.e. climbers vs sprinters for instance.

 

 

 

Muscle fibre type and physiological make up (genetics)

 

 

 

If 2 riders have the same power to weight (one is a big dude and the other is a small dude) then you would expect that they should be able to climb the same but this is not true. I can understand why they don't perform the same on the flats or where the force of the wind is a factor but climbing??

 

 

 

 

If they have the same power to weight over the given duration then they will climb at the same rate - we see it all the time. Over shorter climbs like Chapmans or Suikerbossie for example, we saw all the sprinters stay with David George in the Argus. Had those climbs been 30 mins long then he would have likely dropped them due to the fact that he can sustain the necessary power/weight for a longer duration than they can.

 

[Formerly known as easy rider]

Great to read a thread without the name calling and mud slinging that has  plagued the hub of late!

 

Thanks for all the info here.My Problem.

 

How does one measure power (individually) on a tandem?