Training with power and heart rate

2»

Comments

  • Tom Dean
    Tom Dean Posts: 1,723
    I don't doubt your approach is valid - it may be the best you can do, but for the vast majority who are able to do maximal power testing, it is totally redundant.

    I'm glad to hear though, that you now have the Coggan seal of approval :roll:
  • Max Bridges
    Max Bridges Posts: 108
    Tom Dean wrote:
    I don't doubt your approach is valid - it may be the best you can do, but for the vast majority who are able to do maximal power testing, it is totally redundant.

    I'm glad to hear though, that you now have the Coggan seal of approval :roll:


    I can do maximal testing, but since my illness they take me longer to recover from, so it is not the sort of training I need to do most of the time. Too much maximal testing is not good training anyway. When I do maximal tests it confirms my approach works.

    It is not redundant because it advises improvement or lack of it ahead of the next maximal test. If you use power alone you don't know where you are until the next maximal test. The other advantage is it confirms the test or race numbers were generated at Max level rather than only close too it.
  • Tom Dean
    Tom Dean Posts: 1,723
    Max Bridges wrote:
    Tom Dean wrote:
    I don't doubt your approach is valid - it may be the best you can do, but for the vast majority who are able to do maximal power testing, it is totally redundant.

    I'm glad to hear though, that you now have the Coggan seal of approval :roll:


    I can do maximal testing, but since my illness they take me longer to recover from, so it is not the sort of training I need to do most of the time. Too much maximal testing is not good training anyway.
    I don't think anyone is proposing that maximal testing should be done most of the time.
    Max Bridges wrote:
    When I do maximal tests it confirms my approach works.
    So why do maximal tests at all? You are not making any sense.
    Max Bridges wrote:
    It is not redundant because it advises improvement or lack of it ahead of the next maximal test.
    Again, if you can do this, why test?
    Max Bridges wrote:
    If you use power alone you don't know where you are until the next maximal test.
    You don't know where you are, you have a vague idea of whether or not you are fitter, the same as I do.
    Max Bridges wrote:
    The other advantage is it confirms the test or race numbers were generated at Max level rather than only close too it.
    No it doesn't. Unless a specific effort level corresponds to a specific HR, which it doesn't.

    There is nothing wrong with your system but it has its limitations, none of which you seem able to recognise.
  • Max Bridges
    Max Bridges Posts: 108
    I know where I am day to day, you have no idea until you do a maximal test.
    I test very occasionally now, to prove my theory and method, I don't need to test. No one should do 20 min or 60 min tests more than once every 6 weeks. Many older athletes, athletes coming back from injury or illness would be advised to avoid all out tests until they are fitter and fully recovered.
    Max heart rate hardly changes, percentage of max heart rate is a reasonable guide to effort, particularly if you know what heart rate was in previous race efforts. My race or all out test effort heart rate has not changed in 30 years.

    My system as all the advantages of a power only system but I can make improvements by using heart rate in conjunction with power.
  • Tom Dean
    Tom Dean Posts: 1,723
    Max Bridges wrote:
    I know where I am day to day, you have no idea until you do a maximal test.
    From day-to-day?! You cannot be serious. Even if this were possible, I'm not sure why it would be desirable. Fitness doesn't change that quickly.
    Max Bridges wrote:
    I test very occasionally now, to prove my theory and method, I don't need to test. No one should do 20 min or 60 min tests more than once every 6 weeks. Many older athletes, athletes coming back from injury or illness would be advised to avoid all out tests until they are fitter and fully recovered.
    Max heart rate hardly changes, percentage of max heart rate is a reasonable guide to effort, particularly if you know what heart rate was in previous race efforts. My race or all out test effort heart rate has not changed in 30 years.
    Of course it is possible to do max efforts more frequently than that. Some, including you, have their reasons why they cannot. You just have to accept that this compromises your ability to test fitness.

    If you feel you have proven your theory, lets hear what you actually do. I'm sure there are plenty of people who would like to give up 20 min tests on the turbo and take up a system that predicts performance without the need to actually perform.
    Max Bridges wrote:
    My system as all the advantages of a power only system but I can make improvements by using heart rate in conjunction with power.
    I wouldn't call adding in extra unreliable variable an improvement.
  • Max Bridges
    Max Bridges Posts: 108
    Tom Dean wrote:
    Max Bridges wrote:
    I know where I am day to day, you have no idea until you do a maximal test.
    From day-to-day?! You cannot be serious. Even if this were possible, I'm not sure why it would be desirable. Fitness doesn't change that quickly.
    Max Bridges wrote:
    I test very occasionally now, to prove my theory and method, I don't need to test. No one should do 20 min or 60 min tests more than once every 6 weeks. Many older athletes, athletes coming back from injury or illness would be advised to avoid all out tests until they are fitter and fully recovered.
    Max heart rate hardly changes, percentage of max heart rate is a reasonable guide to effort, particularly if you know what heart rate was in previous race efforts. My race or all out test effort heart rate has not changed in 30 years.
    Of course it is possible to do max efforts more frequently than that. Some, including you, have their reasons why they cannot. You just have to accept that this compromises your ability to test fitness.

    If you feel you have proven your theory, lets hear what you actually do. I'm sure there are plenty of people who would like to give up 20 min tests on the turbo and take up a system that predicts performance without the need to actually perform.
    Max Bridges wrote:
    My system as all the advantages of a power only system but I can make improvements by using heart rate in conjunction with power.
    I wouldn't call adding in extra unreliable variable an improvement.

    If you are a beginner, coming back after a long lay off, have been injured, or ill, fitness is gained quickly if you train appropriately.

    To improve you do need to train, or perform, but you do not need to do maximal tests.

    My method involves looking at the average power / average heart rate ratio and heart rate through a range of powers and durations. I also include heart rate through the session with heart rate and power later in the session being considered in relation to power and heart rate earlier in the session. I also take into account previous sessions.

    Heart rate in relation to power is variable but it is only unreliable if you fail to interpret it correctly.

    The exact calculations I make I'm keeping to myself.

    Tom, I should add, I only apply this to indoors where I can control the training / test environment. I got the impression you thought I was talking about outdoors on real roads.

Categories