FTP using Heart rate

inspectorg69

Hi, can anyone help please?
I am trying to get back into riding after being knocked off!.
I don't have Power but use Garmin for HR measurements etc.
I can ride uphill at 88% max HR for about 1 hour but above 92% and I go anaerobic.
I have a 'flat' (250m ascent) 40Km route where my average HR is about 85%.
This hasn't changed at all since before my accident.

If I estimate my FTP and then train, then measure my FTP again- how will I know I'm getting better- my HR won't increase will it?

Thanks

Alex_Simmons/RST

inspectorg69 wrote:

Hi, can anyone help please?
I am trying to get back into riding after being knocked off!.
I don't have Power but use Garmin for HR measurements etc.
I can ride uphill at 88% max HR for about 1 hour but above 92% and I go anaerobic.
I have a 'flat' (250m ascent) 40Km route where my average HR is about 85%.
This hasn't changed at all since before my accident.

If I estimate my FTP and then train, then measure my FTP again- how will I know I'm getting better- my HR won't increase will it?

Thanks

To determine or estimate FTP, you have to measure power, and you are correct, your HR is not a measure of fitness. HR is helpful as an intensity guide for relatively steady state sub-maximal aerobic exercise, but that's about it.

If you are not measuring power (either say with a power meter or a reliable indoor training ergometer), then the next best proxy to assess changes in fitness is speed/time up a steep climb:
http://www.bikeradar.com/fitness/articl ... ing-19175/

Trev The Rev

I agree with Alex here. Read the Obree Way for more info on an accurate turbo trainer.

Team4Luke

simply ride flat out for an hour on your circuit, whenever you complete this in a faster time in future then you will have improved your fitness and power.

Team4Luke

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

inspectorg69 wrote:

Hi, can anyone help please?
I am trying to get back into riding after being knocked off!.
I don't have Power but use Garmin for HR measurements etc.
I can ride uphill at 88% max HR for about 1 hour but above 92% and I go anaerobic.
I have a 'flat' (250m ascent) 40Km route where my average HR is about 85%.
This hasn't changed at all since before my accident.

If I estimate my FTP and then train, then measure my FTP again- how will I know I'm getting better- my HR won't increase will it?

Thanks

To determine or estimate FTP, you have to measure power, and you are correct, your HR is not a measure of fitness. HR is helpful as an intensity guide for relatively steady state sub-maximal aerobic exercise, but that's about it.

If you are not measuring power (either say with a power meter or a reliable indoor training ergometer), then the next best proxy to assess changes in fitness is speed/time up a steep climb:
http://www.bikeradar.com/fitness/articl ... ing-19175/

of course HR is a measure of fitness. When you exercise, whatever sport, you train all internal body systems, the heart is a muscle and can be trained just the same - it's why people get out of breath - because it's beating too fast.
What actually happens, is you train, you improve all systems including heart as well, of course also by improving others systems you will reduce the stress on your beating heart as well. The end result doesn't tend to change too much, as you end up being able to ride faster for very similar BPM.

doyler78

Team4Luke wrote:

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

inspectorg69 wrote:

Hi, can anyone help please?
I am trying to get back into riding after being knocked off!.
I don't have Power but use Garmin for HR measurements etc.
I can ride uphill at 88% max HR for about 1 hour but above 92% and I go anaerobic.
I have a 'flat' (250m ascent) 40Km route where my average HR is about 85%.
This hasn't changed at all since before my accident.

If I estimate my FTP and then train, then measure my FTP again- how will I know I'm getting better- my HR won't increase will it?

Thanks

To determine or estimate FTP, you have to measure power, and you are correct, your HR is not a measure of fitness. HR is helpful as an intensity guide for relatively steady state sub-maximal aerobic exercise, but that's about it.

If you are not measuring power (either say with a power meter or a reliable indoor training ergometer), then the next best proxy to assess changes in fitness is speed/time up a steep climb:
http://www.bikeradar.com/fitness/articl ... ing-19175/

of course HR is a measure of fitness. When you exercise, whatever sport, you train all internal body systems, the heart is a muscle and can be trained just the same - it's why people get out of breath - because it's beating too fast.
What actually happens, is you train, you improve all systems including heart as well, of course also by improving others systems you will reduce the stress on your beating heart as well. The end result doesn't tend to change too much, as you end up being able to ride faster for very similar BPM.

If it's a measure of fitness then how do we measure it bearing in mind your very last sentence?

Alex_Simmons/RST

Team4Luke wrote:

of course HR is a measure of fitness.

You are confusing a guide to intensity with measures of fitness or performance. HR does the former but not the latter. Power does both.

e.g. same rider climbs a steep climb with maximal effort in similar conditions. It's not their HR that tells you about their fitness change. It's how fast they can climb.

Alex_Simmons/RST

Team4Luke wrote:

simply ride flat out for an hour on your circuit, whenever you complete this in a faster time in future then you will have improved your fitness and power.

Speed on circuits is a poor proxy for fitness. I have times on same circuit that vary considerably, yet my power is the same. Using times as a guide would give me a false impression of how my fitness is progressing.

Things like temperature, barometric pressure, clothing, wind (even barely detectable wind) have a large influence over speed on a circuit for any given day.

If not measuring power, then better to use a test that minimises the impact of these variables on speed, and best test for that is a steep hill climb.

Trev The Rev

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

Team4Luke wrote:

simply ride flat out for an hour on your circuit, whenever you complete this in a faster time in future then you will have improved your fitness and power.

Speed on circuits is a poor proxy for fitness. I have times on same circuit that vary considerably, yet my power is the same. Using times as a guide would give me a false impression of how my fitness is progressing.

Things like temperature, barometric pressure, clothing, wind (even barely detectable wind) have a large influence over speed on a circuit for any given day.

If not measuring power, then better to use a test that minimises the impact of these variables on speed, and best test for that is a steep hill climb.

Obree recommends an accurate turbo trainer and 20 or 30 minute sessions to measure improvements in fitness and as his number one most important training session. He stresses that the trainer must be very accurate and set up exactly the same for every session.

t.m.h.n.e.t

Trev The Rev wrote:

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

Team4Luke wrote:

simply ride flat out for an hour on your circuit, whenever you complete this in a faster time in future then you will have improved your fitness and power.

Speed on circuits is a poor proxy for fitness. I have times on same circuit that vary considerably, yet my power is the same. Using times as a guide would give me a false impression of how my fitness is progressing.

Things like temperature, barometric pressure, clothing, wind (even barely detectable wind) have a large influence over speed on a circuit for any given day.

If not measuring power, then better to use a test that minimises the impact of these variables on speed, and best test for that is a steep hill climb.

Obree recommends an accurate turbo trainer and 20 or 30 minute sessions to measure improvements in fitness and as his number one most important training session. He stresses that the trainer must be very accurate and set up exactly the same for every session.

You do realise that Alex has coached clients to National and World championship wins?

Trev The Rev

T.M.H.N.E.T wrote:

Trev The Rev wrote:

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

Team4Luke wrote:

simply ride flat out for an hour on your circuit, whenever you complete this in a faster time in future then you will have improved your fitness and power.

Speed on circuits is a poor proxy for fitness. I have times on same circuit that vary considerably, yet my power is the same. Using times as a guide would give me a false impression of how my fitness is progressing.

Things like temperature, barometric pressure, clothing, wind (even barely detectable wind) have a large influence over speed on a circuit for any given day.

If not measuring power, then better to use a test that minimises the impact of these variables on speed, and best test for that is a steep hill climb.

Obree recommends an accurate turbo trainer and 20 or 30 minute sessions to measure improvements in fitness and as his number one most important training session. He stresses that the trainer must be very accurate and set up exactly the same for every session.

You do realise that Alex has coached clients to National and World championship wins?

Yes, I was merely mentioning what Obree recommends. I am not questioning anything Alex has said. In fact I agree with a great deal of what Alex has to say about training. I am undecided about Obree's preference for a very accurate turbo trainer over a power meter. Obree's book explains in detail about the type of turbo he uses and why.

If I was questioning or not agreeing with Alex I would have said so. See my earlier post on this thread where I agree with Alex.

t.m.h.n.e.t

Did Obree not suggest that when you are seeking small gains (0.5%)you need to be sure that differences aren't down to the equipment. ie: using a mag trainer with a locked resistance level.

If you are seeking 0.5% then the turbo is pretty irrelevant, you would be using a calibrated power meter.


This is the book in which he also suggests flaring your nostrils out to aid air intake :roll:

Trev The Rev

T.M.H.N.E.T wrote:

Did Obree not suggest that when you are seeking small gains (0.5%)you need to be sure that differences aren't down to the equipment. ie: using a mag trainer with a locked resistance level.

If you are seeking 0.5% then the turbo is pretty irrelevant, you would be using a calibrated power meter.


This is the book in which he also suggests flaring your nostrils out to aid air intake :roll:

He recommends using a magnetic trainer yes, I am not sure why he prefers a very accurate turbo to a power meter. Although I believe in proper deep controlled breathing, particularly when climbing, rather than panic gasping, I do not agree with Obree's breathing method as he explained it in his book. However I do agree with his ideas about diet.

But we wander off thread. We all agree it is necessary to have an accurate way of measuring performance.

doyler78

T.M.H.N.E.T wrote:

Did Obree not suggest that when you are seeking small gains (0.5%)you need to be sure that differences aren't down to the equipment. ie: using a mag trainer with a locked resistance level.

If you are seeking 0.5% then the turbo is pretty irrelevant, you would be using a calibrated power meter.


This is the book in which he also suggests flaring your nostrils out to aid air intake :roll:

I wouldn't be so dismissive. If you followed (and by followed I mean put 100% into and were able to do what asked of you) his training advice you would probably be a considerably better rider however whether the level of obsessiveness it demands is something you want to be involved in is quite another thing.

As to the turbo being irrelevant well :? Given that the turbo is the centre of his training regime and he has tried eliminate that which could give rise to error then I'd say his turbo probably is more accurate than your typical power meter. If he does his key session as described then the power meter will add damn all to his knowledge, if anything it would be just another source of doubt for him.

Whether he could do better with a power meter I'm not convinced given how he trains and for someone like him it may actually just be a distraction. Just goes to show that there are many ways to skin a cat

t.m.h.n.e.t

doyler78 wrote:

T.M.H.N.E.T wrote:

Did Obree not suggest that when you are seeking small gains (0.5%)you need to be sure that differences aren't down to the equipment. ie: using a mag trainer with a locked resistance level.

If you are seeking 0.5% then the turbo is pretty irrelevant, you would be using a calibrated power meter.


This is the book in which he also suggests flaring your nostrils out to aid air intake :roll:

I wouldn't be so dismissive. If you followed (and by followed I mean put 100% into and were able to do what asked of you) his training advice you would probably be a considerably better rider however whether the level of obsessiveness it demands is something you want to be involved in is quite another thing.

As to the turbo being irrelevant well :? Given that the turbo is the centre of his training regime and he has tried eliminate that which could give rise to error then I'd say his turbo probably is more accurate than your typical power meter. If he does his key session as described then the power meter will add damn all to his knowledge, if anything it would be just another source of doubt for him.

Whether he could do better with a power meter I'm not convinced given how he trains and for someone like him it may actually just be a distraction. Just goes to show that there are many ways to skin a cat

The turbo is irrelevant. Anyone serious enough to look for 0.5% gains by todays standards is going to be training with a power meter and will more than likely have a professional coach.

You cannot be serious? A turbo more accurate than a calibrated power meter?

doyler78

T.M.H.N.E.T wrote:

The turbo is irrelevant. Anyone serious enough to look for 0.5% gains by todays standards is going to be training with a power meter and will more than likely have a professional coach.

You cannot be serious? A turbo more accurate than a calibrated power meter?

No it's not. It is absolutely key to his training and therefore his success. Today's standards have damn all to do with getting the best out of oneself and in any case if his turbo is accurate, or even more accurate, than a calibrated power meter then by training with speed he is training with power.

Have you measured his setup? I guess not. Neither have I but that is some attention to detail he has gone into in order that he gets a turbo that he feels eliminates all that he can from the room for error. I'd be willing to lay a bet that his turbo setup is every bit as accurate any on bike power meter out there.

t.m.h.n.e.t

doyler78 wrote:

No it's not. It is absolutely key to his training and therefore his success.

Today's standards have damn all to do with getting the best out of oneself and in any case if his turbo is accurate, or even more accurate, than a calibrated power meter then by training with speed he is training with power.

They do if you want to train like Graeme Obree. Given his unorthodox approach to everything he does, It's a bit of a risk. How does speed on a turbo equate to training with power? They are different no?

Have you measured his setup? I guess not. Neither have I but that is some attention to detail he has gone into in order that he gets a turbo that he feels eliminates all that he can from the room for error. I'd be willing to lay a bet that his turbo setup is every bit as accurate any on bike power meter out there.

He may have wanted to control every single factor but that does not automatically mean that it was accurate,effective yes. Nobody will ever know how much of that effectiveness was down to the equipment or not.

doyler78

Well it's called the Obree Way so what's your point?

If a turbo has a consistent resistance, which his turbo setup is designed to ensure, then speed gains are power gains - yes? You don't have to know the watts to know that a gain is a gain

I never said it did mean it but you absolutely said it didn't. I said my best guess is that it probably is every bit as accurate. Actually it's very easy to test if you really want to know. Just follow his instructions for turbo setup and I'll lend you my very accurate powertap, if you don't have a power meter, which is away getting the hub replaced again (yes the hub, not the torque tube or battery holder) for the second time. At this minute I'd say his approach is a damn site more useful than mine and not impressed than my newly built wheel which was perfectly tensioned according to guy whom I got to check it is going to come back with God knows what sort of tensioning

t.m.h.n.e.t

doyler78 wrote:

Well it's called the Obree Way so what's your point?

If a turbo has a consistent resistance, which his turbo setup is designed to ensure, then speed gains are power gains - yes? You don't have to know the watts to know that a gain is a gain

I never said it did mean it but you absolutely said it didn't. I said my best guess is that it probably is every bit as accurate. Actually it's very easy to test if you really want to know. Just follow his instructions for turbo setup and I'll lend you my very accurate powertap, if you don't have a power meter, which is away getting the hub replaced again (yes the hub, not the torque tube or battery holder) for the second time. At this minute I'd say his approach is a damn site more useful than mine and not impressed than my newly built wheel which was perfectly tensioned according to guy whom I got to check it is going to come back with God knows what sort of tensioning

Well no, Alex covered that above.

I don't have a powermeter/powertap but since they are clearly fragile,it's probably a good idea I don't

doyler78

T.M.H.N.E.T wrote:

doyler78 wrote:

Well it's called the Obree Way so what's your point?

If a turbo has a consistent resistance, which his turbo setup is designed to ensure, then speed gains are power gains - yes? You don't have to know the watts to know that a gain is a gain

I never said it did mean it but you absolutely said it didn't. I said my best guess is that it probably is every bit as accurate. Actually it's very easy to test if you really want to know. Just follow his instructions for turbo setup and I'll lend you my very accurate powertap, if you don't have a power meter, which is away getting the hub replaced again (yes the hub, not the torque tube or battery holder) for the second time. At this minute I'd say his approach is a damn site more useful than mine and not impressed than my newly built wheel which was perfectly tensioned according to guy whom I got to check it is going to come back with God knows what sort of tensioning

Well no, Alex covered that above.

I don't have a powermeter/powertap but since they are clearly fragile,it's probably a good idea I don't

Actually he didn't. He covered speed on an outdoor circuit. Different thing all together

Well Alex will tell you they aren't fragile too so maybe you should

Trev The Rev

Mr Obree invented not one position but two aerodynamic riding positions which were so effective they were banned. Yes he is unorthodox, but he achieved all this without the benefit of a wind tunnel or a power meter.

If Mr Obree has doubts about power meters you should at least consider what he has to say.

What are power meters tested on? The manufacturers claim accuracy (if properly calibrated of +/- 1.5%, Pro SRM for lab use +/- 0.5%) All Obree is saying is that the measuring device should be as accurate as possible.

Not only did Obree brake the hour record with bugger all funding, it was his position which was used to brake the hour record after him with considerable funding. Discard his advice at your own peril.

Alex_Simmons/RST

If you want a turbo that is more likely to be consistently repeatable (have a predicable power-speed relationship), then you need to remove the tyre-roller interface for a start, there are far too many variables with such trainers*.

Something like a Lemond Revolution is much better in this regard.

As for mag resistance units, many are quite simply horrible to ride on, and can result in your turbo power being considerably less than outdoor power. One might question whether or not this matters, but I think it does.


* This does not make such trainers bad, only that relying on the speed data as a proxy for power is fraught with many sources of error.

Trev The Rev

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

If you want a turbo that is more likely to be consistently repeatable (have a predicable power-speed relationship), then you need to remove the tyre-roller interface for a start, there are far too many variables with such trainers*.

Something like a Lemond Revolution is much better in this regard.

As for mag resistance units, many are quite simply horrible to ride on, and can result in your turbo power being considerably less than outdoor power. One might question whether or not this matters, but I think it does.


* This does not make such trainers bad, only that relying on the speed data as a proxy for power is fraught with many sources of error.

Alex,

I find it difficult to understand what Obree is getting at here. Obviously he is pointing out that whatever you use - it must be accurate and repeatable. I read the chapter a few times and I still ask why his turbo is better than a power meter?

I think Obree 'likes' the horribleness of the trainer as he says it helps with generating good force throughout the pedal stroke. But I'm not sold on this.

He does not like power meters, but I am unable to understand why.

Trev.

t.m.h.n.e.t

doyler78 wrote:

T.M.H.N.E.T wrote:

doyler78 wrote:

Well it's called the Obree Way so what's your point?

If a turbo has a consistent resistance, which his turbo setup is designed to ensure, then speed gains are power gains - yes? You don't have to know the watts to know that a gain is a gain

I never said it did mean it but you absolutely said it didn't. I said my best guess is that it probably is every bit as accurate. Actually it's very easy to test if you really want to know. Just follow his instructions for turbo setup and I'll lend you my very accurate powertap, if you don't have a power meter, which is away getting the hub replaced again (yes the hub, not the torque tube or battery holder) for the second time. At this minute I'd say his approach is a damn site more useful than mine and not impressed than my newly built wheel which was perfectly tensioned according to guy whom I got to check it is going to come back with God knows what sort of tensioning

Well no, Alex covered that above.

I don't have a powermeter/powertap but since they are clearly fragile,it's probably a good idea I don't

Actually he didn't. He covered speed on an outdoor circuit. Different thing all together

Well Alex will tell you they aren't fragile too so maybe you should

The point is the same imo,outdoors or on a turbo speed isn't a good indicator.

Alex_Simmons/RST

Trev The Rev wrote:

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

If you want a turbo that is more likely to be consistently repeatable (have a predicable power-speed relationship), then you need to remove the tyre-roller interface for a start, there are far too many variables with such trainers*.

Something like a Lemond Revolution is much better in this regard.

As for mag resistance units, many are quite simply horrible to ride on, and can result in your turbo power being considerably less than outdoor power. One might question whether or not this matters, but I think it does.


* This does not make such trainers bad, only that relying on the speed data as a proxy for power is fraught with many sources of error.

Alex,

I find it difficult to understand what Obree is getting at here. Obviously he is pointing out that whatever you use - it must be accurate and repeatable. I read the chapter a few times and I still ask why his turbo is better than a power meter?

I think Obree 'likes' the horribleness of the trainer as he says it helps with generating good force throughout the pedal stroke. But I'm not sold on this.

He does not like power meters, but I am unable to understand why.

Trev.

I've not read what he says, nor do I know him personally, so really I can't speculate on what he is getting at.

What I will say is that there is no regular mag trainer that can be relied upon to be consistent to the same level of accuracy as can be assessed with a calibrated quality power meter.

It might be that he suggests that using a turbo, even if not super consistent, is good enough for the purpose (i.e. it's doing the training at the right level that matters, not the precise wattage) and that's fine.

As for not liking power meters, well that might be a personal thing, but intelligent use of a power meter includes an understanding of the psychology involved - and really that's the same issue no matter the measurement tool invoked.

Trev The Rev

Obree is saying in the book that any fans have to be removed from the magnetic turbo to improve accuracy, as the fan part is affected by temperature and air pressure, he claims his modified machine is accurate to +/- 0.5%.

He seems to have no interest in power meter data or software.

t.m.h.n.e.t

He doesnt mention what the measurement is that he makes "accurate' either. Something that probably should have been included.

The whole book as far as I've read is nothing more than suggestive science and anecdote.

Trev The Rev

T.M.H.N.E.T wrote:

He doesnt mention what the measurement is that he makes "accurate' either. Something that probably should have been included.

The whole book as far as I've read is nothing more than suggestive science and anecdote.

Whatever his methods I would be wary in discounting Obree. He did invent the two fastest aero positions and break the hour record twice and was world pursuit champion a few times. His suggestive science and anecdote methods seem to work.

That said, I can't understand why he does not recommend using a power meter.

His views on rest & recovery are interesting.

doyler78

T.M.H.N.E.T wrote:

He doesnt mention what the measurement is that he makes "accurate' either. Something that probably should have been included.

The whole book as far as I've read is nothing more than suggestive science and anecdote.

OK lets start with the basics.

1) He believes he has a setup on the turbo which means that the resistance between the turbo and wheel is always consistent (to a very small tolerance - a better tolerance than power meters)

2) If 1 proves correct then speed changes are power changes (dismiss that all you like but it is correct)

3) If you base all your key sessions on the turbo and you have greater accuracy than a power meter then why would you use a power meter (of course that assumes 1 is correct again)

That simply is all he is saying. There is nothing unusual in any of that. There are a many a coaches out there that will tell you that their best numbers (not necessarily results because numbers do not equal results but they sure as hell make it more likely) come from key sessions on a turbo except they use a power meter, some will even use RPE or HR.

Alex's problem with turbos stems from a knowledge of the commercial trainers out there as they are. What Obree does is basically take what is a sh1tty turbo and removes all the things that he has identified as possible sources of error. He further refines that by dealing with not only the trainer but the tyre setup. He is looking holisticly at the whole turbo and bike interface and doing what he needs to do to ensure that when he sees tiny changes in speed that they equate to real changes in power. It all hinges on point 1 and given this guys history and his knowledge of bike building & physics I'll give him the benefit of the doubt on this one. Until someone actually measures it none of us will know.

So he doesn't dislike power meters it's just for him they just aren't accurate enough. At least that's my interpretation of what he has written.

Alex_Simmons/RST

Trev The Rev wrote:

Obree is saying in the book that any fans have to be removed from the magnetic turbo to improve accuracy, as the fan part is affected by temperature and air pressure, he claims his modified machine is accurate to +/- 0.5%.

He seems to have no interest in power meter data or software.

You would have to ask him how he verified that level of accuracy.

Whether or not he has an interest in power meters isn't really relevant. To perform better one needs to produce more power (all else equal) irrespective of whether you measure power or not.

t.m.h.n.e.t

Im still not seeing how increased speed =increased power. Especially in Obrees setup where only speed is measured,there is no way to gauge gains.

Perhaps Alex could explain.