Use of heart rate monitors

dave_1

Interesting that David Millar didn't use one in the Dauphine TT and came 3rd...wonder if this is a better method than riding on feel so to speak, juudging your own fatigue??

DaveyL

He may have used a PowerTap instead.

Murr X

Dave_1 wrote:

Interesting that David Millar didn't use one in the Dauphine TT and came 3rd...wonder if this is a better method than riding on feel so to speak, juudging your own fatigue??

Hi Dave, I used a HRM years ago but quite frankly there is no real benefit to be had from using them and HR varies considerably day to day due to a wide range of reasons even though you may be totally unaware of it. Using a powermeter you can see clearly how much HR may fluctuate relative to the power you are producing.

Cardiac drift will usually occur to some degree as well, meaning that heart rate will climb during a steady effort - ie a time trial. For instance during a super steady well paced TT, heart rate will continue to climb through out the effort. If HR is dead constant through out the TT then it is likely that power is decreasing gradually and it was not so well paced.

I do believe that going by feel is a better method of training and that people very often end up training too hard or too easily when they follow their HR zones religiously.

Cheers

dave_1

Murr X wrote:

Dave_1 wrote:

Interesting that David Millar didn't use one in the Dauphine TT and came 3rd...wonder if this is a better method than riding on feel so to speak, juudging your own fatigue??

Hi Dave, I used a HRM years ago but quite frankly there is no real benefit to be had from using them and HR varies considerably day to day due to a wide range of reasons even though you may be totally unaware of it. Using a powermeter you can see clearly how much HR may fluctuate relative to the power you are producing.

Cardiac drift will usually occur to some degree as well, meaning that heart rate will climb during a steady effort - ie a time trial. For instance during a super steady well paced TT, heart rate will continue to climb through out the effort. If HR is dead constant through out the TT then it is likely that power is decreasing gradually and it was not so well paced.

I do believe that going by feel is a better method of training and that people very often end up training too hard or too easily when they follow their HR zones religiously.

Cheers

I once won a regional road race event 1st cat...with huge gears on a really low heart rate as had ridden 400 miles in the previous 6 days as build up to an event two weeks later...legs were sore and tired but also strong if that makes sense. A heart rate monitor would have told me to take the day off but I got round it with low cadence big gear work. So agree, HRM is a rough guide. I haven't used a power tap as stopped racing in 1995, raced 10 years up to then...

dave_1

DaveyL wrote:

He may have used a PowerTap instead.

true enough DaveyL, don't Garmin get asked to ride with them so the results can be posted...would be interesting to know if he is disregarding all tech...seemed to be that way from what he was saying

Alex_Simmons/RST

Highly experienced time trial specialists are very good at self pacing. The power meter is, for them, mostly a post-hoc analysis tool.

It does however provide great assistance to those that pace poorly. It is of most use to make sure you don't overcook the opening kilometres or any early climb.

Kléber

Like Alex says as a pro Millar will not need to look at the HRM to know if he's in the red or not. For the amateur knowing your heart rate can be useful but like a powermeter it is just a tool and the real think is knowing how to use it best.

jibberjim

When Millar crossed the finish line at Ventoux the other day, he was the only person I saw who made a big movement to hit lap/stop whatever on his garmin - maybe he has to as part of the sponsorship deal. But I actually suspect he's pretty interested in the data.

Alex_Simmons/RST

jibberjim wrote:

When Millar crossed the finish line at Ventoux the other day, he was the only person I saw who made a big movement to hit lap/stop whatever on his garmin - maybe he has to as part of the sponsorship deal. But I actually suspect he's pretty interested in the data.

No doubt he's interested but it wouldn't be a sponsorship requirement. It simply enables him to quickly see on his CPU what he did time and power wise. But marking intervals with the CPU is not all that critical, you can readily mark them in the software after downloading the data.

scottfrasernz

From the research I've read, cardiac drift occurs because declining hydration creates reduced heart stroke volume, so a higher HR is needed to maintain the cardiac output = the power output.

Declining hydration occurs because the body's skin temperature rises requiring increased water circulation to the pores in the form of sweating - in other words, the body's cooling system as it begins to operate in it's most effective mode.

This is why for sub-maximal endurance training for longer periods, staying within established HR ranges is the best option for maximum sustained cardiovascular benefit and avoidance of overtraining. Dehydration and cellular oxidation (damage) that occurs along with it are implicit in HR.

For maximal training, of prescribed periods of specific aerobic or anaerobic effort, a power meter would be superior, to ensure that the desired output intensity is achieved e.g. for sprint efforts or interval efforts.

So it is unwise to say training by power is exclusively superior to training based on HR ranges.

Power being the superior measure for specific intensity/maximal efforts, while HR based training is superior for establishing general training intensities that automatically factor in fatique level, emotional stress, hydration, diet factors etc.

Alex_Simmons/RST

scottfrasernz wrote:

This is why for sub-maximal endurance training for longer periods, staying within established HR ranges is the best option for maximum sustained cardiovascular benefit and avoidance of overtraining. Dehydration and cellular oxidation (damage) that occurs along with it are implicit in HR.

For maximal training, of prescribed periods of specific aerobic or anaerobic effort, a power meter would be superior, to ensure that the desired output intensity is achieved e.g. for sprint efforts or interval efforts.

So it is unwise to say training by power is exclusively superior to training based on HR ranges.

Power being the superior measure for specific intensity/maximal efforts, while HR based training is superior for establishing general training intensities that automatically factor in fatique level, emotional stress, hydration, diet factors etc.

That is a very simplistic view of training with power.

But even if we take your example, you can either produce the power at the intended level or you can't. Relying on HR might suggest you push on with a training session, but at a lower (power) level (but you wouldn't know it). That can lead to over training.

HR is also often depressed due to fatigue. What then - do you try harder? push on?

And it also presumes that keeping HR down is a sensible goal, when in fact the goal is to maximise performance, regardless of what happens with HR.

Metabolic and physiological demands are far better assessed with power, as is performance. HR is simply an indicator of cardiovascular strain. HR is definitely not an indicator of performance.

I'm not saying that using HR (with an understanding of its limitations) is not helpful (and I use it to guide training for those not using power). But too often people ascribe things to HR that you really can't and I doubt you could suggest one scenario where training with HR is superior to using a power meter. Let's not forget that power meters also have HRMs built in.

SunWuKong

I personally find my HRM useful for training. I do understand the limitations and to be honest on the bike I can usually guess my heart rate from how I am feeling. I do not really use it for HR zones except for the low end like recovery or slow/steady sessions when I know I have a tendancy to over cook it for the purposes of that session.

I am a real data geek and would love a power meter but the cost is currently just too much for me.

So I use a combination of a rear speedo for turbo sessions for indoor intense session and feel with the odd glance at my HRM when outdoors. If the HRM is telling me something different to how I feel it has often been either I am tired or about to get ill.

csp

Dave_1 wrote:

Interesting that David Millar didn't use one in the Dauphine TT and came 3rd...wonder if this is a better method than riding on feel so to speak, juudging your own fatigue??

I think there are quite a few pro cyclists who do not use either a HRM or a powermeter. If you look at pictures of CSC/Saxo Bank riders you will find that the only thing they have is a Sigma computer.

phil s

csp wrote:

Dave_1 wrote:

Interesting that David Millar didn't use one in the Dauphine TT and came 3rd...wonder if this is a better method than riding on feel so to speak, juudging your own fatigue??

I think there are quite a few pro cyclists who do not use either a HRM or a powermeter. If you look at pictures of CSC/Saxo Bank riders you will find that the only thing they have is a Sigma computer.

In races. However, many have SRM on their training bikes.

csp

Yes, but the original question was about judging effort in a race.

scottfrasernz

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

That is a very simplistic view of training with power.

But even if we take your example, you can either produce the power at the intended level or you can't. Relying on HR might suggest you push on with a training session, but at a lower (power) level (but you wouldn't know it). That can lead to over training.

HR is also often depressed due to fatigue. What then - do you try harder? push on?

And it also presumes that keeping HR down is a sensible goal, when in fact the goal is to maximise performance, regardless of what happens with HR.

Metabolic and physiological demands are far better assessed with power, as is performance. HR is simply an indicator of cardiovascular strain. HR is definitely not an indicator of performance.

I'm not saying that using HR (with an understanding of its limitations) is not helpful (and I use it to guide training for those not using power). But too often people ascribe things to HR that you really can't and I doubt you could suggest one scenario where training with HR is superior to using a power meter. Let's not forget that power meters also have HRMs built in.

There's a simple fatigue test Alex that is popular in the medical community as it has been proven through rigorous medical research trials in cardiology. This is the HR difference between resting (lying or sitting) and standing. People can look this up for themselves. It is about spotting deviation from standardised normal difference for the individual.

My point is that you don't need a power meter or even to go near your bike to establish if you are fatigued and in a state where further training will only fatigue you more. So here is an example of what you challenged me to provide - an instance when HR is a superior measure to power. Proper monitoring of HR will keep an athlete off their bike altogether in the instances where that is the best option.

Sure the goal is to maximise performance, but not every training ride has a direct link to maximising performance. You are right, HR is a measure of cardiovascular strain.

For those who can't afford a power meter, a good substitute is to establish one or more repeatable peformance output tests. E.g. a target speed for 2 mins, or a local climb.

While environmental conditions will vary, if you note the conditions and compare your performances on comparable days, you can track your performance and compare this against the information from your HRM.

As others have already pointed out, information from these 'tests' can help an athlete develop their ability to sense their own effort level and to tease out performance improvements without resorting to slavish and tedious 'clock watching' behaviour.

In the right hands a power meter is a superior overall training aid, but not always as I said earlier, or in isolation, and there are dangers/pitfalls.

Simpler, more affordable tools as well as developing an ability to 'train by feel' certainly still have their place, and in some cases are also a better choice.

In racing it's often the rider who produced 'inferior' power numbers who wins. Why? They 'hid' all day and avoided the wind or wasteful efforts.

In road racing, I would be more interested in torque than power (i.e. accelerative output rather than constant output), Alex do you have a view on that and how do the latest power measuring devices identify torque? This is a genuine question not a challenge.

E.g. if my rider wants to accelerate harder to make a gap or cross a gap, or deliver a faster sprint acceleration to come off a wheel and sprint past their opponent - how could we use a power meter to focus on this facet of performance? Most of the power data I hear riders discussing seems to focus on steady-state power output, which relates to constant/top speed rather than acceleration, relating more closely to time trialling than the rapid tempo changes of a road race.

I would be interested to learn more about this. Any thoughts?

chrisw12

Scott, a few questions for you.

1) Can you share/give more details of the test about sitting/standing hr you mention?
I'm having to teach statistics at the moment so am interested from a training and applying maths point of view.



A couple of weeks ago I would have agreed with a lot of what you are saying. I have used hr and been a slave to it, with my maths head I could get a lot from it but I've upped my training time by quite a bit and have totaly lost the hr plot, the patterns I used to see have gone so I'm making the move to get more accuracy and getting a power meter.

I also have had no luck with your suggestion about doing repeatable hill efforts. At the end of the day, the wind is always there and where I live, the higher you go the windier it is. I've had enough of going out and setting pbs or pws, trying to find answers when the answer is simply 'the wind.'


and I've totaly lost (never had) the ability to ride by feel. If I'm tt ing on my own without any 'aids' I simply will not go hard enough. Sorry it's just the way I am, my brain needs an external stimulus to tell me to 'push harder fat boy'


On that last one, is there anyone that has produced a best performance when they've been totaly on their own, that is, absolutely NO pacing aid.

chrisw12

This has also come up on the tt forum:-http://www.timetriallingforum.co.uk/index.php?showtopic=33918

Interesting to note that two of the guys that say they race without external devices are pretty fast and will spend most of their time catching people, . Now for me there is no greater motivation than seeing someone up the road.

dave_1

chrisw12 wrote:

This has also come up on the tt forum:-http://www.timetriallingforum.co.uk/index.php?showtopic=33918

Interesting to note that two of the guys that say they race without external devices are pretty fast and will spend most of their time catching people, . Now for me there is no greater motivation than seeing someone up the road

I always got told in track pursut to never look over...but I bet there must be a few seconds wasting studying wattage, heart rates in TTs...it's like tuning in car radio, you take your foot off the accelerator

Alex_Simmons/RST

scottfrasernz wrote:

There's a simple fatigue test Alex that is popular in the medical community as it has been proven through rigorous medical research trials in cardiology. This is the HR difference between resting (lying or sitting) and standing. People can look this up for themselves. It is about spotting deviation from standardised normal difference for the individual.

My point is that you don't need a power meter or even to go near your bike to establish if you are fatigued and in a state where further training will only fatigue you more. So here is an example of what you challenged me to provide - an instance when HR is a superior measure to power. Proper monitoring of HR will keep an athlete off their bike altogether in the instances where that is the best option.

An overly elevated waking HR is a reasonable sign something's up but it's not always reliable. Even so, it is not a patch on comparing perceived exertion versus power. If you can put out the watts and not suffering like a dog to do it, then that's all that matters.

scottfrasernz wrote:

Sure the goal is to maximise performance, but not every training ride has a direct link to maximising performance. You are right, HR is a measure of cardiovascular strain.

Any training session that doesn't have a direct link to improving performance is sub-optimal (presuming it is improved performance that one is after).

scottfrasernz wrote:

For those who can't afford a power meter, a good substitute is to establish one or more repeatable peformance output tests. E.g. a target speed for 2 mins, or a local climb.

While environmental conditions will vary, if you note the conditions and compare your performances on comparable days, you can track your performance and compare this against the information from your HRM.

As others have already pointed out, information from these 'tests' can help an athlete develop their ability to sense their own effort level and to tease out performance improvements without resorting to slavish and tedious 'clock watching' behaviour.

Which is exactly why I wrote this item:
http://www.bikeradar.com/fitness/articl ... ting-19175

scottfrasernz wrote:

In the right hands a power meter is a superior overall training aid, but not always as I said earlier, or in isolation, and there are dangers/pitfalls.

Simpler, more affordable tools as well as developing an ability to 'train by feel' certainly still have their place, and in some cases are also a better choice.

Power meters require intelligent use. But so does a hammer. You can't blame a tool for being poorly used.

And I've already said HR has its place, as does perceived exertion, as a means to guage the intensity of effort.

scottfrasernz wrote:

In racing it's often the rider who produced 'inferior' power numbers who wins. Why? They 'hid' all day and avoided the wind or wasteful efforts.

Well that's just smart racing. Not sure what that's got to do with using a power meter to improve one's racing fitness. In fact analysis of power meter data can help one assess just how smart they actually were. There is reference to a rider in the TdF who completed an entire stage with an average power of around 100 watts.

Indeed a rider with less power can win time trials as well, especially if they have a superior threshold power to aero drag ratio. But you need a power meter to assess things like that.

scottfrasernz wrote:

In road racing, I would be more interested in torque than power (i.e. accelerative output rather than constant output), Alex do you have a view on that and how do the latest power measuring devices identify torque? This is a genuine question not a challenge.

E.g. if my rider wants to accelerate harder to make a gap or cross a gap, or deliver a faster sprint acceleration to come off a wheel and sprint past their opponent - how could we use a power meter to focus on this facet of performance? Most of the power data I hear riders discussing seems to focus on steady-state power output, which relates to constant/top speed rather than acceleration, relating more closely to time trialling than the rapid tempo changes of a road race.

I would be interested to learn more about this. Any thoughts?

Torque is a red herring. Acceleration is a function of power, not torque.

It's just in these scenarios we are talking about neuromuscular power and anaerobic abilities.

Of course power meters do measure torque, since they determine power by measuring the applied torque (usually via some form of strain guage) and rotational speed of the crank or hub (depending on device). But inspecting torque without simulataneously inspecting pedal speed is like trying to determine the area of a rectangle when you know its width but never know it's length.

There are many ways to use power meter data for working on neuromuscular and anaerobic power. A good starting place is to understand a rider's:

- mean maximal power for various durations from 5 seconds to 5 minutes - the shape of this MMP curve tells you something about a rider's current abilities and where their relative strengths and weaknesses are as well as relative to the type of curve typical for the event type. This is also assessed within the concept of power profiling (which is in effect a mean maximal power chart with 4 specific duration assessed). See here for info on that:
http://home.trainingpeaks.com/articles/ ... iling.aspx

- relationship between their maximal pedal force generation and pedal speed during in the opening handful of seconds of a sprint like effort (such as a hard acceleration/standing start). This is best assessed with tool like Quadrant Analysis. See here for more:
http://home.trainingpeaks.com/articles/ ... lysis.aspx

Now in those examples, it doesn't show specifically the peak power curve but an example of that can be seen in another two references about the use of power meters for track riders, by the same author, Dr Coggan. That can befound in the download section of the Fixed Gear Fever forum.

- maximal accumulated oxygen deficit - the best means as assessing one's anaerobic abilities, and it can be estimated using power meter data from a well paced pursuit effort . See here for a discussion on that:
http://alex-cycle.blogspot.com/2007/02/ ... rsuit.html

With such information, one can better understand some of the specific elements of neuromuscular and anaerobic abilities that one should work on for their goals/events. In particular, it helps to assess what facets of one's training need more emphasis than others.

DaveyL

http://www.saris.com/athletes/PermaLink ... 7bc20.aspx

Bart Dockx of Silence-Lotto averaged 90 Watts for the 176 km of this year's Giro Stage 13!

csp

This figure isn't uncommon in stage races.

DaveyL

No, but it's certainly an eye-opener once you start using a powermeter yourself and can relate to the number.

I'm tempted to say I could've hung with the bunch on that stage but there were probably a few accelerations that would've seen me blown out the back door!