Power Meter Advice
Comments
-
Alex, thanks for considered reply.
In my view if you are going to spend thousands of pounds or dollars on precision equipment you want to eliminate any margin for error and have correct numbers to work with, otherwise why bother. The whole point is you have accurate precise numbers.
Out of interest, if you ran heart rate and power alongside each other would TSS come out the same based on heart rate as it would based on power? Would they invariably correlate with each other or would there be some crossing over? If they always correlate what does that tell you? Where they do not correlate what does that tell you?
Deciding what training, when to rest or when to do the really hard sessions and when to allow full recovery, very much depends on so many factors, I do not think there should be any over reliance on the software.
I think there are better ways to manage training than using software based entirely on past wattage output.
I have no problem with basing sessions on previous best performance over a given time / distance, but TSS based on vague FTP derived from power out only, when most of the power out was achieved in fatigued, unrested and unmotivated states, jumbled in with races or sessions produced in a rested fresh state and all being given the same score is misleading.
If you read people's posts on cycling forums it is apparent many have got to a stage where they are chasing TSS scores rather than using the data as actionable intelligence.
Bottom line is I don't think most people know how to use the data and get the data wrong in the first place.
My own view, given that cardiac drift (outdoors) is only 5 bpm over 4 hours, is that power data should always be viewed in the context of heart rate.
The fact that there is more heart rate drift indoors only proves how you need to see power output in context with heart rate.0 -
What exactly are you trying to achieve?CAPTAIN BUCKFAST'S CYCLING TIPS - GUARANTEED TO WORK! 1 OUT OF 10 RACING CYCLISTS AGREE!0
-
Herbsman wrote:What exactly are you trying to achieve?
In what context?
I'm questioning the validity of a system of training based entirely on power data. There seems to be some assumption, that this is the only way to train.
Using heart rate is disparaged, yet many people still use heart rate, even using heart rate in conjunction with power is disparaged with heart rate being dismissed as irrelevant.
I am trying to point out that putting too much emphasis on output watts alone can be counterproductive because it diverts too much attention away from the athlete as a whole and how best to train him and how he produces the power in context with his individual set of circumstances.
Take recovery. There are ways of knowing when an athlete has properly recovered, or at least recovered enough to make more intense training worth while, or know when intense training will be counter productive, yet all we seem to hear about is power data.0 -
Does this really answer the OP's question?CAPTAIN BUCKFAST'S CYCLING TIPS - GUARANTEED TO WORK! 1 OUT OF 10 RACING CYCLISTS AGREE!0
-
Dave_P1 wrote:I'm in two minds at the moment about buying a power meter and I'm sure some of you guys 'n' girls on this forum train to power so I'm after some advice. There seems to be a few different manufacturers making them but is one particularly any better than the other, e.g hub or cranks, rotor or SRM?
I'm interested to know what you guys run and why you chose that over another model.
Cheers,
Dave
If you are in two minds, don't buy one. If you are sure you do want one buy from someone who can give you help with a good after sales service.0 -
You confuse precision in measurement with how information is used to guide training.BigFatBloke wrote:In my view if you are going to spend thousands of pounds or dollars on precision equipment you want to eliminate any margin for error and have correct numbers to work with, otherwise why bother. The whole point is you have accurate precise numbers.
No.BigFatBloke wrote:Out of interest, if you ran heart rate and power alongside each other would TSS come out the same based on heart rate as it would based on power? Would they invariably correlate with each other or would there be some crossing over? If they always correlate what does that tell you? Where they do not correlate what does that tell you?
No.
Perhaps.
Not much.
Not much.
Nowhere am I aware of does anyone suggest this. What they are saying however is there is now a quantifiable measure to help one understand one really important aspect of the response to training loads. No one suggests this information be taken out of context. Stop making up strawmen.BigFatBloke wrote:Deciding what training, when to rest or when to do the really hard sessions and when to allow full recovery, very much depends on so many factors, I do not think there should be any over reliance on the software.
I think there are better ways to manage training than using software based entirely on past wattage output.
No, it's not misleading at all, but your statements are.BigFatBloke wrote:I have no problem with basing sessions on previous best performance over a given time / distance, but TSS based on vague FTP derived from power out only, when most of the power out was achieved in fatigued, unrested and unmotivated states, jumbled in with races or sessions produced in a rested fresh state and all being given the same score is misleading.
What motivates people to train varies, nothing wrong with that.BigFatBloke wrote:If you read people's posts on cycling forums it is apparent many have got to a stage where they are chasing TSS scores rather than using the data as actionable intelligence.
Bottom line is I don't think most people know how to use the data and get the data wrong in the first place.
It's one way of saying "ride more", or "ya been doing much lately?".
Your experience is neither unique nor common to everyone, and HR really adds no actionable intelligence to power data. What matters is what you can do, not how fast your heart beats.BigFatBloke wrote:My own view, given that cardiac drift (outdoors) is only 5 bpm over 4 hours, is that power data should always be viewed in the context of heart rate.
The fact that there is more heart rate drift indoors only proves how you need to see power output in context with heart rate.0 -
Alex,
We must agree to differ.
TSS is based on Normalised Power which is an estimate and FTP which may also be an estimate.
Heart rate is fact, it is not an estimate.
Heart rate drift of only 5 beats per minute over 4 hours outdoors is documented.
The fact you are unable to to use, or refuse to use heart rate alongside power is your problem.0 -
BigFatBloke wrote:
Heart rate is fact, it is not an estimate.
FFS - HR is not a measure of output, power is. By your reckoning, the rider with the highest HR should win the race - which is a ridiculous notion.0 -
NP is a function of measured power, it is not an estimate.BigFatBloke wrote:TSS is based on Normalised Power which is an estimate and FTP which may also be an estimate.
FTP is measurable. The fact that some may choose to use a less accurate estimate is irrelevant.0 -
Imposter wrote:BigFatBloke wrote:
Heart rate is fact, it is not an estimate.
FFS - HR is not a measure of output, power is. By your reckoning, the rider with the highest HR should win the race - which is a ridiculous notion.
I'm advocating using power and heart rate in conjunction. I have never claimed heart rate is a measure of output. It is a measure of how hard the body is being stressed, and of course it is variable. No one as far as I'm aware has ever said the person with the highest heart rate should win the race.0 -
Tom Dean wrote:
NP is a function of measured power, it is not an estimate.BigFatBloke wrote:TSS is based on Normalised Power which is an estimate and FTP which may also be an estimate.
FTP is measurable. The fact that some may choose to use a less accurate estimate is irrelevant.
Normalised power is an estimate.
I quote from TrainingPeaks - my bold and large.
http://home.trainingpeaks.com/articles/ ... score.aspx
Quote:
By taking these factors into account, normalized power provides a better measure of the true physiological demands of a given training session - in essence, it is an estimate of the power that you could have maintained for the same physiological "cost" if your power output had been perfectly constant (e.g., as on a stationary cycle ergometer), rather than variable. End Quote.
And here is another quote which you might find interesting,
Quote:
TSS, which is modeled after Dr. Eric Bannister's heart rate-based training impulse (TRIMPS), End Quote
TSS is an estimate using power data which is designed to mimic TRIMPS which is based on guess what HEART RATE.
I advocate using heart rate and power. Both have their uses, both have advantages and disadvantages. Use them together and you have more information, the disadvantages from both systems are eliminated, new advantages appear and one can better make decisions.
Why would anyone choose to use either in isolation if they could use both?0 -
Ok, it is an estimate in the sense that it is supposed to represent something that is impossible to measure directly. I don't understand why this is a criticism.0
-
BigFatBloke wrote:I have never claimed heart rate is a measure of output. It is a measure of how hard the body is being stressed,
HR is not even a measure of stress - it is a measure of how fast your heart is beating - nothing more.0 -
Chris Froome said,
"My measurements are done through my SRM unit. It measures the power that we’re pushing through when you ride. It used to be heart rate and now power, but its really a combination. All of it is done wirelessly."
http://www.stuff.co.za/2013/06/28/stuff ... is-froome/0 -
Imposter wrote:BigFatBloke wrote:I have never claimed heart rate is a measure of output. It is a measure of how hard the body is being stressed,
HR is not even a measure of stress - it is a measure of how fast your heart is beating - nothing more.
You have been brainwashed.
Try increasing your power from 250 watts to 300 watts without increasing your heart rate. Why do you think heart rate increases when you get overheated and dehydrated if you hold the same power?
http://www.toppfysik.nu/wp-content/uplo ... itions.pdf0 -
BigFatBloke wrote:You have been brainwashed.
Brainwashed into thinking that HR is a measure of heart rate? What else would it be?BigFatBloke wrote:Try increasing your power from 250 watts to 300 watts without increasing your heart rate. Why do you think heart rate increases when you get overheated and dehydrated if you hold the same power?
Nobody said it would not increase in response to higher effort - but the increase is not necessarily linear, for all kinds of variable reasons - which is why HR is a pretty useless measure of performance at higher intensities. Power is an output, so is therefore an ideal measure of performance. Good luck disagreeing with any of that.BigFatBloke wrote:
You seem to have lost sight of the point of your argument - assuming you ever had one.0 -
You are brainwashed into believing heart rate is irrelevant if you have power. I believe you should use heart rate and power in conjunction.
I believe training should be based on actual proven FTP (not estimates) and / or best power for duration.
Heart rate is not a measure of performance but it does reflect effort and it's variability is the very reason it is valuable.
http://www.cycleops.com/en/training/tra ... power.html
Quote:
The real issue though is not if power and heart rate correlate perfectly with one another, it's that power and heart rate are measuring two fundamentally different things. Power is a measure of your actual dose. Heart rate is a measure of your response. Not only are they distinct, they are both a critical aspect of a basic training paradigm. That is, power measures the heat while heart rate tells you how fast the kernels are burning. Add time, and you get the total energy that goes into a system (power x time) as well as the total number of kernels popped (heart rate x time). So the inherent value of measuring both power and heart rate is that you can track the fundamental relationship between your training dose or load and your response or adaptation. You can see, chronically or acutely, if you are getting better or worse. In many ways, the process of training and adaptation isn't too different from a growing tree blowing in the wind. Initially, the young tree bends quite a bit to a gust of wind, but as it grows and gets stronger, the same wind barely causes any flex in that tree's trunk. In this scenario, power is that gust of wind and heart rate is how much that tree bends. In theory, as we get stronger over time, we should be able to produce more power at a given heart rate. Likewise, within a ride, as we fatigue, dehydrate, or over heat, our heart rate drifts high at any given power output. Understanding the relationship between the two and being aware of the factors that can affect both are important to optimizing one's training.End Quote0 -
BigFatBloke wrote:Tom Dean wrote:
NP is a function of measured power, it is not an estimate.BigFatBloke wrote:TSS is based on Normalised Power which is an estimate and FTP which may also be an estimate.
FTP is measurable. The fact that some may choose to use a less accurate estimate is irrelevant.
Normalised power is an estimate.
I quote from TrainingPeaks - my bold and large.
You are deliberately quoting out of context to support your fallacious claim. You are referring to NP in context of TSS as being an estimate when it is nothing of the sort.
NP is precisely defined and calculated according to the algorithm defined using a rider's actual power output data. That precise value is what's used to calculate TSS.0 -
F@cking hell Trev you'll say anything to keep people disagreeing with you.More problems but still living....0
-
Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:BigFatBloke wrote:Tom Dean wrote:
NP is a function of measured power, it is not an estimate.BigFatBloke wrote:TSS is based on Normalised Power which is an estimate and FTP which may also be an estimate.
FTP is measurable. The fact that some may choose to use a less accurate estimate is irrelevant.
Normalised power is an estimate.
I quote from TrainingPeaks - my bold and large.
You are deliberately quoting out of context to support your fallacious claim. You are referring to NP in context of TSS as being an estimate when it is nothing of the sort.
NP is precisely defined and calculated according to the algorithm defined using a rider's actual power output data. That precise value is what's used to calculate TSS.
Alex,
Normalised power is an estimate of the power you might have put out if it were a steady effort. TSS used NP which is an estimate. So you end up with scores which are based on an estimate of FTP and an estimated NP which is something you might have done.
Or in short, an estimate of a might have done.
I prefer to base things on facts, like the best average power over a given time. Nothing wrong with a real FTP, it is estimates I don't like.
Back to using heart rate and power, I don't agree with everything this chap says but he does explain why he uses heart rate and power reasonably well in lay terms.
http://wattbike.com/uk/blog/post/why_tr ... _and_power
Quote:
And let me deal with the cry I often hear, ‘but heart rate is so variable’. Of course it is! It measures the physiological, psychological and environmental conditions influencing the body at any moment in time and is therefore critical to the success of the training session. There is no point in riding at 200 W with HR at 65% of max on one day and on another riding at 200 W with HR at 85% of max – they are not the same training sessions.
Conversely, of course, just training with power ignores the variation in physiological response.End Quote0 -
You quoted a definition of NP earlier. This is just a confused rewording of the part you selectively bolded, size 150. Read the whole thing and try to understand it with the purpose of NP and TSS in mind. It sounds like you have it completely back to front.BigFatBloke wrote:Normalised power is an estimate of the power you might have put out if it were a steady effort.
oh p.s.
Give it a rest FFS.BigFatBloke wrote:So you end up with scores which are based on an estimate of FTP...0 -
Tom Dean wrote:
You quoted a definition of NP earlier. This is just a confused rewording of the part you selectively bolded, size 150. Read the whole thing and try to understand it with the purpose of NP and TSS in mind. It sounds like you have it completely back to front.BigFatBloke wrote:Normalised power is an estimate of the power you might have put out if it were a steady effort.
oh p.s.
Give it a rest FFS.BigFatBloke wrote:So you end up with scores which are based on an estimate of FTP...
Tom,
The point is I understand it, see the limitations and question it rather than blindly believe it.
When a scientist discards such important information as heart rate as irrelevant you have to start questioning why.
A minority of coaches and scientists on cycling forums are pushing the idea that heart rate is irrelevant if you have power. Many coaches and scientists do not agree with them.
It also seems Joe Freil uses power & heart rate and he is a coach on TrainingPeaks
http://www.joefrielsblog.com/2011/05/sp ... tness.html0 -
There is nothing to 'believe' or otherwise! Your criticism of the NP concept is incoherent. But hey, just shift the discussion back to your power meter conspiracy theories before we can get to the bottom of it...
I have never argued that HR data is useless.0 -
Tom Dean wrote:There is nothing to 'believe' or otherwise! Your criticism of the NP concept is incoherent. But hey, just shift the discussion back to your power meter conspiracy theories before we can get to the bottom of it...
I have never argued that HR data is useless.
Tom,
To say my criticism of Normalised Power is incoherent is not an argument.
I'm pleased to hear you do not think heart rate is useless.0 -
Jeez, is this still going? Stop feeding the troll....FCN3: Titanium Qoroz.0
-
Wrath Rob wrote:Jeez, is this still going? Stop feeding the troll....
I have an opinion, you do not agree, so you call me a troll. Pathetic.0 -
trev, if you were measuring Q you might be on to something, but you're not. last time i checked there were two products that make up Q. Just knowing heart rate is next to useless as SV can go up or down.
either way, i dunno why you're getting so bent out of shape about the whole thing. I couldn't give a rats arse about HR, but if i have a client who likes wearing the funky strap around their chest then so be it.
the thing is you've been suckered into believing stuff about the importance of heart speed.
more importantly, who do you think will win the Vuelta?Coach to Michael Freiberg - Track World Champion (Omnium) 2011
Coach to James Hayden - Transcontinental Race winner 2017, and 2018
Coach to Jeff Jones - 2011 BBAR winner and 12-hour record
Check out our new website https://www.cyclecoach.com0 -
Ric/RSTSport wrote:trev, if you were measuring Q you might be on to something, but you're not. last time i checked there were two products that make up Q. Just knowing heart rate is next to useless as SV can go up or down.
either way, i dunno why you're getting so bent out of shape about the whole thing. I couldn't give a rats ars* about HR, but if i have a client who likes wearing the funky strap around their chest then so be it.
the thing is you've been suckered into believing stuff about the importance of heart speed.
more importantly, who do you think will win the Vuelta?
Ric,
Just knowing heart rate is of use, but of limited use. Just knowing power is of use and far more use than heart rate. Knowing both makes both far more useful. There are a lot of things you can do if you know both.
I'm not suckered into believing any stuff about heart rate or power. You have been suckered into believing heart rate is of no use if you have power.0 -
BigFatBloke wrote:Heart rate better reflects the true training stress than power. Ideally you would still want both numbers though. But if you had to choose one or the other, heart rate would be better.BigFatBloke wrote:Just knowing heart rate is of use, but of limited use. Just knowing power is of use and far more use than heart rate.0
-
Tom Dean wrote:BigFatBloke wrote:Heart rate better reflects the true training stress than power. Ideally you would still want both numbers though. But if you had to choose one or the other, heart rate would be better.BigFatBloke wrote:Just knowing heart rate is of use, but of limited use. Just knowing power is of use and far more use than heart rate.
That first quote was in context of tracking training load or getting a training stress score. Using heart rate to record training stress is well documented. Given the problems with setting FTP which changes, hopefully upwards, and the need to rely on normalised power because average power does not reflect the true physiological stress, using heart rate to measure total training stress works well because it reflects total effort not just the output. Max heart rate and threshold heart rate tend to be stable, FTP moves about.
So for recording Training stress or load I would use heart rate because it reflects the total effort, the input, not just the output.
I do in fact use both heart rate and power in conjunction to calculate training load / stress. I have the best of both worlds.
If I had to choose between using heart rate or power for 'everything' I would use power, because the most important thing to know is performance, but if I were only interested in training load or stress I would go for heart rate. I can also use heart rate for multiple sports.
Why only use one or the other when you can use both?0
