New HRM or venture in to Power training

shinsplint

Afternoon guys,

I've had it with my Garmin 500. Had it for about 5 years, but the HR strap just never lasts with me. Tried a Polar soft strap which was great initially, but now doesnt work. Tried replacing the battery (wrong way round first etc), with no joy.

So i'm thinking of trying a power meter of some sort.

Budget isnt massive, so is there an entry level I should be looking at? I run Ultegra 6800 cranks on both my bikes, and don't mind changing these if thats the way to go.

Has to be accurate and reliable. Or is that too much to ask at entry level?

Other than that, maybe the newer HRMs are more reliable?

Any advice welcome.

diy

Have you tried the strap with another device. From memory you have to put the garmin in to a proper scan mode.

I've read about reversing the polarity but all you are actually doing is shorting the contacts as the button cell wont make contact on the -ive if you reverse the cell.

shinsplint

diy wrote:

Have you tried the strap with another device. From memory you have to put the garmin in to a proper scan mode.

I've read about reversing the polarity but all you are actually doing is shorting the contacts as the button cell wont make contact on the -ive if you reverse the cell.

I havent. I only have the Garmin. I think it could be the transmitter itself to be honest, but i've never had much joy with it from day one. I would say 70% of the time i've used my Garmin without the function I bought it for lol.

diy

A power meter seems like a fairly expensive solution given that these belts sell for £20-30

imposter2.0

As above, switching to power because your HRM doesn't work is a bit extreme. But that's not to say that power training would not be more appropriate anyway, depending on your training goals. Incidentally, what are your training goals?

shinsplint

diy wrote:

A power meter seems like a fairly expensive solution given that these belts sell for £20-30

As I said, I think it could be the transmitter rather than the strap.

Training goals: No longer racing, but will be having a go at TTs next year, and the odd sportive. Just generally improving speed.

Man Of Lard

diy wrote:

A power meter seems like a fairly expensive solution given that these belts sell for £20-30

They've recently shot up in price at Amazon to £11.99 (the last one I bought from the same source was £9.40)

HRM straps (not the transmitter) are consumable items by virtue of being fabric... they wear out. Even complete HRM transmitters (inc belt) can be had for £25.

Power meter is going to start at £350 for a 4iiii (based on a 105 crank, Ultegra & Dura-Ace are more...)

smoggysteve

If you are serious about your cycling and really want a tool to help you improve then I would recommend a power meter. You could get a Stages or a Pioneer for about 500 pounds. So long as you understand why you are using it and what the numbers mean they are a great tool. Some will say its a bit drastic replacing a hrm but its a different way of training altogether with power and I for one would never go back to using heart rate alone.If you decide against it I still use heart rate and I got a Berry King hrm from Amazon very cheap that works with my Garmin.

mikenetic

If you really want to be serious about training you'll need both HR and Power.

imposter2.0

Not sure that's correct really. All HR does is give you an approximation of effort at aerobic levels. At anything above 89-90%, or for intervals, it becomes pretty much useless anyway.

Alex_Simmons/RST

Man Of Lard wrote:

Power meter is going to start at £350 for a 4iiii (based on a 105 crank, Ultegra & Dura-Ace are more...)

You won't get accuracy for £350 for a new device. At best you'll get a unilateral power measurement device.

smoggysteve

Imposter wrote:

Not sure that's correct really. All HR does is give you an approximation of effort at aerobic levels. At anything above 89-90%, or for intervals, it becomes pretty much useless anyway.

This. Heartrate can be effected by too many variables. Fatigue, hydration, temperature.... power is power no matter what the terrain or wind or if you're sat on a turbo your effort is the same.

Alex_Simmons/RST

mikenetic wrote:

If you really want to be serious about training you'll need both HR and Power.

HR adds no actionable intelligence to (good) power meter data. With power, HR becomes redundant and in fact can be quite misleading. HR has some utility if you don't have power, but it is rather limited.

smoggysteve

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

Man Of Lard wrote:

Power meter is going to start at £350 for a 4iiii (based on a 105 crank, Ultegra & Dura-Ace are more...)

You won't get accuracy for £350 for a new device. At best you'll get a unilateral power measurement device.

This is something that is a bit of a fallacy. Not all power meters will give the same reading and its not actually that important. Its the consistency in the accuracy that is important. Generally on tests the lower priced units do a pretty good job at showing consistent reading comparable to say SRM. Yes you get more info like pedal bias but so long as you know what you can push out on a 20 minute FTP test on whichever power meter you have as a benchmark then you can set your training accordingly.

Alex_Simmons/RST

SmoggySteve wrote:

Imposter wrote:

Not sure that's correct really. All HR does is give you an approximation of effort at aerobic levels. At anything above 89-90%, or for intervals, it becomes pretty much useless anyway.

This. Heartrate can be effected by too many variables. Fatigue, hydration, temperature.... power is power no matter what the terrain or wind or if you're sat on a turbo your effort is the same.

While I understand the general principle you are eluding to, there can also be a disconnect between perceived effort and the same power output under different circumstances. e.g. it is quite common for people to be unable to replicate outdoor power capability on their indoor trainer. HR however is not the answer either, rather it's about having the actual objective data (i.e. power) so one can understand what's actually going on and make intelligent assessment, analysis and decisions about their training.

That said, power + perceived exertion is pretty darn good combination for assessing such things, and HR doesn't add much value to that.

Alex_Simmons/RST

SmoggySteve wrote:

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

Man Of Lard wrote:

Power meter is going to start at £350 for a 4iiii (based on a 105 crank, Ultegra & Dura-Ace are more...)

You won't get accuracy for £350 for a new device. At best you'll get a unilateral power measurement device.

This is something that is a bit of a fallacy. Not all power meters will give the same reading and its not actually that important. Its the consistency in the accuracy that is important. Generally on tests the lower priced units do a pretty good job at showing consistent reading comparable to say SRM. Yes you get more info like pedal bias but so long as you know what you can push out on a 20 minute FTP test on whichever power meter you have as a benchmark then you can set your training accordingly.

A unilateral power meter cannot be as accurate as a bilateral one.

It is a fundamentally well established fact with a strong body of evidence via multiple scientific papers demonstrating the nature of pedalling asymmetries. Asymmetry and variable asymmetry is the norm, not the exception.

smoggysteve

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

SmoggySteve wrote:

Imposter wrote:

Not sure that's correct really. All HR does is give you an approximation of effort at aerobic levels. At anything above 89-90%, or for intervals, it becomes pretty much useless anyway.

This. Heartrate can be effected by too many variables. Fatigue, hydration, temperature.... power is power no matter what the terrain or wind or if you're sat on a turbo your effort is the same.

While I understand the general principle you are eluding to, there can also be a disconnect between perceived effort and the same power output under different circumstances. e.g. it is quite common for people to be unable to replicate outdoor power capability on their indoor trainer. HR however is not the answer either, rather it's about having the actual objective data (i.e. power) so one can understand what's actually going on and make intelligent assessment, analysis and decisions about their training.

That said, power + perceived exertion is pretty darn good combination for assessing such things, and HR doesn't add much value to that.

It is true that many people find it difficult to replicate the power output on the road it is quite unlikely you would ever find a pefectly consistent road to ride on for an extended period of time. Ever road has changes in elevation or maybe the wind just changed direction effecting the power you exert to sit at a particular speed but the fact remains the the power you put through the pedals is the same indoors or outdoors.

mikenetic

SmoggySteve wrote:

Imposter wrote:

Not sure that's correct really. All HR does is give you an approximation of effort at aerobic levels. At anything above 89-90%, or for intervals, it becomes pretty much useless anyway.

This. Heartrate can be effected by too many variables. Fatigue, hydration, temperature.... power is power no matter what the terrain or wind or if you're sat on a turbo your effort is the same.

But that's the point right? I know that HR isn't going to provide useful data for short max intervals and the like, or probably in a 10 TT, but what it does do is give you a direct physiological measure (how fast your heart is beating) that complements your power data. At a tiny cost, given that you're already in possession of a head unit if you're logging power.

If your heart rate data is out of whack with expectations for a given power output it's useful. Are you dehydrated, are you overtired, are you sick, are you seeing decoupling over the course of a long ride due to a lack of base? All of these things aid your training. Velocast have done a good series of podcasts on training approaches recently, and they specifically cover the power/HR issue in some depth.

All of this comes down to training goals, because they are driving what you should be measuring. But just discarding HR data as part of your overall data set because you can measure power seems short-sighted.

Alex_Simmons/RST

mikenetic wrote:

Velocast have done a good series of podcasts on training approaches recently, and they specifically cover the power/HR issue in some depth.

All of this comes down to training goals, because they are driving what you should be measuring. But just discarding HR data as part of your overall data set because you can measure power seems short-sighted.

Power:HR data is akin to reading tea leaves.

Alex_Simmons/RST

SmoggySteve wrote:

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

SmoggySteve wrote:

Imposter wrote:

Not sure that's correct really. All HR does is give you an approximation of effort at aerobic levels. At anything above 89-90%, or for intervals, it becomes pretty much useless anyway.

This. Heartrate can be effected by too many variables. Fatigue, hydration, temperature.... power is power no matter what the terrain or wind or if you're sat on a turbo your effort is the same.

While I understand the general principle you are eluding to, there can also be a disconnect between perceived effort and the same power output under different circumstances. e.g. it is quite common for people to be unable to replicate outdoor power capability on their indoor trainer. HR however is not the answer either, rather it's about having the actual objective data (i.e. power) so one can understand what's actually going on and make intelligent assessment, analysis and decisions about their training.

That said, power + perceived exertion is pretty darn good combination for assessing such things, and HR doesn't add much value to that.

It is true that many people find it difficult to replicate the power output on the road it is quite unlikely you would ever find a pefectly consistent road to ride on for an extended period of time. Ever road has changes in elevation or maybe the wind just changed direction effecting the power you exert to sit at a particular speed but the fact remains the the power you put through the pedals is the same indoors or outdoors.

You said that effort was the same. That's was the point I was correcting. Effort is often not the same for the same power output. The fact that many are unable to replicate their outdoor power when indoors is clear evidence of that.

smoggysteve

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

SmoggySteve wrote:

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

SmoggySteve wrote:

Imposter wrote:

Not sure that's correct really. All HR does is give you an approximation of effort at aerobic levels. At anything above 89-90%, or for intervals, it becomes pretty much useless anyway.

This. Heartrate can be effected by too many variables. Fatigue, hydration, temperature.... power is power no matter what the terrain or wind or if you're sat on a turbo your effort is the same.

While I understand the general principle you are eluding to, there can also be a disconnect between perceived effort and the same power output under different circumstances. e.g. it is quite common for people to be unable to replicate outdoor power capability on their indoor trainer. HR however is not the answer either, rather it's about having the actual objective data (i.e. power) so one can understand what's actually going on and make intelligent assessment, analysis and decisions about their training.

That said, power + perceived exertion is pretty darn good combination for assessing such things, and HR doesn't add much value to that.

It is true that many people find it difficult to replicate the power output on the road it is quite unlikely you would ever find a pefectly consistent road to ride on for an extended period of time. Ever road has changes in elevation or maybe the wind just changed direction effecting the power you exert to sit at a particular speed but the fact remains the the power you put through the pedals is the same indoors or outdoors.

You said that effort was the same. That's was the point I was correcting. Effort is often not the same for the same power output. The fact that many are unable to replicate their outdoor power when indoors is clear evidence of that.

Thats the point. Perceived effort varies. The same ride on the same route can be easier from one day to the other. Do it on a calm day and you're speed is up and you think you did well. Do it with a headwind and you're speed drops you perceive it as not as good but the power meter shows exactly how hard you worked despite the variables.

Alex_Simmons/RST

SmoggySteve wrote:

Thats the point. Perceived effort varies. The same ride on the same route can be easier from one day to the other. Do it on a calm day and you're speed is up and you think you did well. Do it with a headwind and you're speed drops you perceive it as not as good but the power meter shows exactly how hard you worked despite the variables.

Equating effort and speed is a strawman.

Yes the power meter will provide data on the external mechanical work performed and yes, provided the meter is good, it will reliably report the power output irrespective of the scenario and provide an objective assessment of the external mechanical work done. That's not at issue.

However there are other factors that influence the effort that goes into producing those (external mechanical) watts. You had mistakenly equated power with effort. They are not the same thing. And just because the watts may not be the same does not imply one effort is less effective than another. Hard is hard.

Yes, effort does vary on a day to day basis for the same power due to various daily variable factors previously mentioned (and as we both agree the power meter provides an objective comparison for similar ride scenarios), however effort also varies for the same power for many other reasons such as environmental conditions, differences in inertial load and neuromuscular demands, partial pressure of oxygen, training loads and fatigue levels, acute changes in fitness and so on.

Thats why the power meter data along with perceived exertion and context of the circumstances of the ride are quite useful.

Unfortunately and despite what many believe (and unrelated to this minor sub-discussion), HR data doesn't add any actionable intelligence to such information, indeed it can be misleading.

smoggysteve

You are agreeing yet arguing at the same time which is quite peculiar. I don't understand what you are trying to convince me of.

Power meters work. The evidence is out there. However you want to describe the effort or exertion required on any given ride is pretty irrelevant. They help take the guesswork out of how hard you are working irrespective of the conditions

Alex_Simmons/RST

SmoggySteve wrote:

You are agreeing yet arguing at the same time which is quite peculiar. I don't understand what you are trying to convince me of.

I'm agreeing with many of your (irrelevant) points. It was just one matter that I wanted to correct, when you erroneously equated effort and power, that is all.

WRT power meters, you hardly have to convince me, I've been a champion of power meters and training with power for a long time, have blogged specifically about the topic for a decade, have been involved from the early days in helping to develop and test many of the power analysis tools that we all take for granted nowadays. I'm a professional coach that uses power data with all my clients who have competed at all levels.

mikenetic

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

mikenetic wrote:

Velocast have done a good series of podcasts on training approaches recently, and they specifically cover the power/HR issue in some depth.

All of this comes down to training goals, because they are driving what you should be measuring. But just discarding HR data as part of your overall data set because you can measure power seems short-sighted.

Power:HR data is akin to reading tea leaves.

Well, it seems (as in so many things) the professional sports coach community has a range of opinions. Who knew?

stueys

Alex if I follow your argument then you don't use the EF or or aerobic decoupling metrics in TP for any of your analysis?

Not picking a fight but I'm curious. Personally I find both useful and can see clear, consistent trends across my data.

Alex_Simmons/RST

Stueys wrote:

Alex if I follow your argument then you don't use the EF or or aerobic decoupling metrics in TP for any of your analysis?

You would be correct.

Stueys wrote:

Not picking a fight but I'm curious. Personally I find both useful and can see clear, consistent trends across my data.

No fights here.

What actionable intelligence does such information provide that analysis of actual performance, i.e. power data (and perceived exertion) does not?

Are you clear on the circumstances where such data is misleading?

EBEB

There's a PowerTap Heart Rate Monitor that emits a standard ANT+ Power Output too. I've forgot its name. Possibly PowerCal. It uses some voodoo magic to turn HR into power.

It's supposed to be okay for long constant durations, such as doing the Time Trials you mention. Don't think it would be much cop for Sportives, but on them do you really care about power? It is a lot cheaper.

Obviously, it isn't as good as a power meter, but it might be good enough for your purposes?

Similarly not a direct force Power Meter is the iBike PowerPod, also cheaper. It calculates power using an inbuilt wind sensor, barometer and gyroscopes. I have a device with the same hardware and it correlates well with my Power2Max crank power meter 98% of the time. It doesn't like heavy rain or very windy days. It might be a reasonable halfway house if direct force power meters are too expensive.

stueys

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

What actionable intelligence does such information provide that analysis of actual performance, i.e. power data (and perceived exertion) does not?

Are you clear on the circumstances where such data is misleading?

In my view it's complimentary, ultimately the best assessment of performance is probably ftp which is the actual work you can demonstratably sustain. But that's not to say heart rate data is useless. Equally ftp tests themselves are variable, some people test well, others don't. I know that I test better outside for instance, so I always have a slight fudge factor to my indoor winter tests.

RPE I find subjective, and by it's very nature it's always going to be subjective. Some people i suspect can dial in their rpe pretty closely, others can't. Personally I find that if I'm feeling tired, under the weather, etc, then it takes me time to make accurate assessments. Likewise at the end of a long ride everything feels hard ;-)

Heart rate for me is useful, it collates very closely with my assessment of rpe and there is also collation between my heart rate and power, albeit hear rate will always lag. Sure there are external factors that will influence heart rate but they apply equally to RPE to my mind.

In my view you can train to heart rate zones and derive benefit, it's a reasonable accurate measure of effort being applied. Power will alway trump it as it's measuring power out and is influenced by less external factors but heart rate can be useful if you work within its limitations.

What am I missing?

imposter2.0

Stueys wrote:

In my view you can train to heart rate zones and derive benefit, it's a reasonable accurate measure of effort being applied. Power will alway trump it as it's measuring power out and is influenced by less external factors but heart rate can be useful if you work within its limitations.

What am I missing?

I think what is being argued is that HR can be a useful training tool if you don't have a way of measuring power. But if you are already measuring power, then HR adds very little to your training data. Assuming power improvement is your training objective, then HR becomes just another 'incidental' measurement, much like cadence, or the time of day.

Alex_Simmons/RST

Stueys wrote:

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

What actionable intelligence does such information provide that analysis of actual performance, i.e. power data (and perceived exertion) does not?

Are you clear on the circumstances where such data is misleading?

In my view it's complimentary,

IOW if you have power data, HR data is at best redundant.

This was my answer on stack exchange to the question of using HR when you have power:

http://bicycles.stackexchange.com/a/42806/13358

One of the key points is that if you are simply using power meter data as a means to monitor and gauge intensity of effort while training, then that's a very narrow paradigm and about the lowest value use of power meter data there is. If that's all you do with such data, then you could save your money and keep on using an HRM or just as effectively and more cheaply, just use your RPE.