Fitness Markers for the Solo rider(Ruth, Alex etc?)

Toks

Lowered times on a training loop, decrease in heart rate over time for given effort, increased wattage on a power meter and faster speed shown on a cyclecomputer are all fairly common fitness markers for the cyclist who rides alone. However I remember reading somewhere about a cyclist who always judged how fit he was by how quickly his heart rate returned to resting levels after an above threshold effort (e.g climbing a hill). Any thoughts?

liversedge

Changes in heart rate recovery after high-intensity training in well-trained cyclists

Department of Human Biology, Faculty of Health Sciences, UCT/MRC Research Unit for Exercise Science and Sports Medicine, The Sport Science Institute of South Africa, University of Cape Town, P.O. Box 115, Newlands, 7725, South Africa.

Heart rate recovery (HRR) after submaximal exercise improves after training. However, it is unknown if this also occurs in already well-trained cyclists. Therefore, 14 well-trained cyclists (VO(2max) 60.3 +/- 7.2 ml kg(-1) min(-1); relative peak power output 5.2 +/- 0.6 W kg(-1)) participated in a high-intensity training programme (eight sessions in 4 weeks). Before and after high-intensity training, performance was assessed with a peak power output test including respiratory gas analysis (VO(2max)) and a 40-km time trial. HRR was measured after every high-intensity training session and 40-km time trial. After the training period peak power output, expressed as W kg(-1), improved by 4.7% (P = 0.000010) and 40-km time trial improved by 2.2% (P = 0.000007), whereas there was no change in VO(2max) (P = 0.066571). Both HRR after the high intensity training sessions (7 +/- 6 beats; P = 0.001302) and HRR after the 40-km time trials (6 +/- 3 beats; P = 0.023101) improved significantly after the training period. Good relationships were found between improvements in HRR(40-km) and improvements in peak power output (r = 0.73; P < 0.0001) and 40-km time trial time (r = 0.96; P < 0.0001). In conclusion, HRR is a sensitive marker which tracks changes in training status in already well-trained cyclists and has the potential to have an important role in monitoring and prescribing training.

BeaconRuth

Toks wrote:

Lowered times on a training loop, decrease in heart rate over time for given effort, increased wattage on a power meter and faster speed shown on a cyclecomputer are all fairly common fitness markers for the cyclist who rides alone. However I remember reading somewhere about a cyclist who always judged how fit he was by how quickly his heart rate returned to resting levels after an above threshold effort (e.g climbing a hill). Any thoughts?

How many fitness markers do you need? By the time you've finished marking your fitness with all those methods you won't have any time left to train.

No, seriously, I've no doubt there's an effect there - it's fairly self-evident that the fitter you are the faster your general recovery from exercise and I don't see why this shouldn't apply to HRR too if you want to go to the trouble of monitoring and recording it. But unless you've some reason why no other method of 'marking fitness' can be used, I'm not sure why this should be of much interest. I don't believe in collecting or scrutinising data for the sake of it. Wouldn't it be easier just to measure your fitness by how long it took you to climb the hill in the first place?

In what scenario do you think using HRR as a fitness marker would be useful/valuable?

Ruth

Alex_Simmons/RST

Toks wrote:

Lowered times on a training loop, decrease in heart rate over time for given effort, increased wattage on a power meter and faster speed shown on a cyclecomputer are all fairly common fitness markers for the cyclist who rides alone. However I remember reading somewhere about a cyclist who always judged how fit he was by how quickly his heart rate returned to resting levels after an above threshold effort (e.g climbing a hill). Any thoughts?

I'd be more interested in how long it took to climb the hill in the first place (provided the hill is of sufficient gradient to minimise the influence of other environmental factors on the time).

His HRR might be "better" but if he is going slower, I wouldn't necessarily call that an improvement in fitness.

Infamous

Isn't a hillclimb more affected by how light you are, than how fit you are?

Alex_Simmons/RST

Infamous wrote:

Isn't a hillclimb more affected by how light you are, than how fit you are?

It's primarily a function of your sustainable power to weight ratio, which is an excellent fitness marker.