What's all this about..?

SteveR_100Milers · September 2007

My HR in the club 10 last night was about 5 bpm higher than usual, yet my speed was lower (by 30 seconds course conditions better than previously). This despite riding a full on TT bike.

Have had 3 weeks off bike (hols) plus stomach bug which went 2-3 days ago. have done 75 miles (aborted 12 hour) plus about 50 steady/tempo miles since coming back off hols.

My RPE wasnt particularly high, although my legs were burning more than usual but thats to be xpected with so little riding. Whats puzzling is why my steady state (LT) HR has gone up so much??

oldwelshman · September 2007

Well it does not look to be overtraining problem

Ilness can cause a 5 to 10 bpm increase.
A coach once told me to check every morning and if rest bpm is more than 5 above normal not to ride. How is your rest bpm in morning?

See I told you the flashy bikes make no difference :P

ut_och_cykla · September 2007

You are still poorly? At least your body thinks it is perhaps. How's your resting rate - slightly raised too? Stomach bugs can upset salts /liquid balances

SteveR_100Milers · September 2007

Havent checked RBPM in the morning anway. Not even sure what my base healthy rate is.. :roll:

Jeff Jones · September 2007

Three weeks off the bike is a while, especially if you had some illness. I've found if I have 10 days off, it takes me double that time to get back to my previous fitness level. And getting that back seems to happen all of a sudden, not gradually.

SteveR_100Milers · September 2007

jjones wrote:

Three weeks off the bike is a while, especially if you had some illness. I've found if I have 10 days off, it takes me double that time to get back to my previous fitness level. And getting that back seems to happen all of a sudden, not gradually.

Thats what worries me, I have only 1/3 of the time...

chrisw12 · September 2007

I think there's bit of a myth that goes around the forums, it starts off with someone stating they're going on hols' for two weeks and ask if they'll loose fitness. Always some helpful person will reply reassuring that taking the break is good for them and they wont loose any fitness. The two then become bosom butties.

I know that after only a 4 day break early in the season I came back worse from it. I think you can loose fitness pretty quickly (well I do) and this effect is much worse if you've just hit a peak. What you don't mention Steve is that before you'd taken the three week break you'd produced a pretty good peformance in the Welsh 100 and perhaps hitting a peek. From there it was always going to be downhill perhaps.

Ric_Stern/RST · September 2007

The higher HR seen during exercise, is due to a decrease in fitness and a decrease in plasma volume. Both result in a higher HR at a lower fitness level.

However, it should also be noted, that HR varies significantly, even when there are no changes in fitness or plasma volume, which is why a power meter is/can be important for training and data analysis.

Fitness decreases rapidly (like you wouldn't believe) when exercise is cessated. Within the first week there's a decrease in plasma volume and thereafter there are significant decreases in fitness. see http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entre ... d_RVDocSum

and http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entre ... d_RVDocSum

I know of no data linking resting HR and health, and fitness, other than resting HR is likely to be raised if you're ill (but you'll also feel ill as well)

Ric

SteveR_100Milers · September 2007

chrisw12 wrote:

I think there's bit of a myth that goes around the forums, it starts off with someone stating they're going on hols' for two weeks and ask if they'll loose fitness. Always some helpful person will reply reassuring that taking the break is good for them and they wont loose any fitness. The two then become bosom butties.

I know that after only a 4 day break early in the season I came back worse from it. I think you can loose fitness pretty quickly (well I do) and this effect is much worse if you've just hit a peak. What you don't mention Steve is that before you'd taken the three week break you'd produced a pretty good peformance in the Welsh 100 and perhaps hitting a peek. From there it was always going to be downhill perhaps.

Ha ha! Until 2010 by the feel of things!

Lord knows how I'd hit a peak, I didnt plan it: a rather uninspiring 10 and 50 the preceeding week. I serioulsy think that preparation is only 80% of it, the rest of it is just "on the day". Might as well follow the star signs... :roll:

Ric_Stern/RST · September 2007

SteveR_100Milers wrote:

chrisw12 wrote:

I think there's bit of a myth that goes around the forums, it starts off with someone stating they're going on hols' for two weeks and ask if they'll loose fitness. Always some helpful person will reply reassuring that taking the break is good for them and they wont loose any fitness. The two then become bosom butties.

I know that after only a 4 day break early in the season I came back worse from it. I think you can loose fitness pretty quickly (well I do) and this effect is much worse if you've just hit a peak. What you don't mention Steve is that before you'd taken the three week break you'd produced a pretty good peformance in the Welsh 100 and perhaps hitting a peek. From there it was always going to be downhill perhaps.

Ha ha! Until 2010 by the feel of things!

Lord knows how I'd hit a peak, I didnt plan it: a rather uninspiring 10 and 50 the preceeding week. I serioulsy think that preparation is only 80% of it, the rest of it is just "on the day". Might as well follow the star signs... :roll:

If you know what variables to manipulate, and have a power meter, you can accurately ascertain when you'll be going well, and thus plan out your training to arrive at a peak at the correct time.

ric

SteveR_100Milers · September 2007

Ric, of course you're right, but unless you're an elite athlete (or really have too much money) then a power meter is surely pointless for a mid table tester. Your money is better spent elsewhere. There is really no substitute for putting the hours and effort into training on a bike with a basic well thought out training plan (which to be honest you can glean from the cycling mags / t'internet for nowt). My point was I have not really done either...

oldwelshman · September 2007

Ric_Stern/RST wrote:

The higher HR seen during exercise, is due to a decrease in fitness and a decrease in plasma volume. Both result in a higher HR at a lower fitness level.

However, it should also be noted, that HR varies significantly, even when there are no changes in fitness or plasma volume, which is why a power meter is/can be important for training and data analysis.

Fitness decreases rapidly (like you wouldn't believe) when exercise is cessated. Within the first week there's a decrease in plasma volume and thereafter there are significant decreases in fitness. see http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entre ... d_RVDocSum

and http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entre ... d_RVDocSum

I know of no data linking resting HR and health, and fitness, other than resting HR is likely to be raised if you're ill (but you'll also feel ill as well)

Ric

An increase in resting heart rate can also be an indicator of ilness before you feel it and is wise not to train if resting rate goes more than 5 bpm upwards. If it is 10 more, stay in bed

This has to be taken when you wake and before you get uo though, not after running to the bathroom

oldwelshman · September 2007

SteveR_100Milers wrote:

Ric, of course you're right, but unless you're an elite athlete (or really have too much money) then a power meter is surely pointless for a mid table tester. Your money is better spent elsewhere. There is really no substitute for putting the hours and effort into training on a bike with a basic well thought out training plan (which to be honest you can glean from the cycling mags / t'internet for nowt). My point was I have not really done either...

Some one in my club has power tap and the bearings are gone after only a year !!. Well worth the money considerring he got dropped in the club run

As you say, good for pros and elites but not sure about them for us poor clubbies Steve

Ric_Stern/RST · September 2007

SteveR_100Milers wrote:

Ric, of course you're right, but unless you're an elite athlete (or really have too much money) then a power meter is surely pointless for a mid table tester. Your money is better spent elsewhere. There is really no substitute for putting the hours and effort into training on a bike with a basic well thought out training plan (which to be honest you can glean from the cycling mags / t'internet for nowt). My point was I have not really done either...

I truly believe you're wrong on both these aspects. In terms of training with a power meter, your training can be so much more specific - i.e., designed to really focus on your weaknesses (or strengths) and improve you at a more rapid rate than e.g. HR training. This is especially important for people who are very time limited, and who don't have time to ride around getting kilometres in. Not every mid-table tester (roadie, MTB, trackie, or whatever) can aspire to being a top table tester (or whatever), due to genetic constraints, and perhaps time issues, but we can aspire to being the best we can. Specific training really helps here (and this is truly, only possible with a power meter, or perhaps an indoor, tempeture and humidity controlled velodrome).

For e.g., you can see where you lack fitness (as power is what drives you down the road/track/etc) and then focus on the physiological underpinnings to improve that. Obviously, some people may suggest that this is possible either with HR or PE. However, HR varies significantly at a given power depending on fatigue, training status, environmental and topographical conditions, as well as cadence, food, and altitude. This means that when i do some training sessions my HR significantly varies at the same power (e.g., often when i do TT training my HR can be 10 or more b/min different at the same power). If perhaps, we could measure cardiac output compared to HR alone it may be better (but obviously measures of cardiac output or stroke volume are likely to horribly invasive).

In terms of PE, i'm often reminded of this when climbing hills. I can ride our local mountain (the Bwlch) and depending on my fatigue, the weather, etc my power at the same PE can vary by a factor of 25%.

I've never seen a decent training programme either in a magazine or the internet; that looks anything like a decent programme that a *good* coach could prescribe for you. Anyone who publishes something for the masses in a magazine has a duty to make it usable for the lowest common denominator (the lowest fitness person, in any specific group it's aimed at). Otherwise, a training programme could likely be way too hard and cause injury or death. Likewise, any programme published is hardly likely to be specific to an individual either.

Ric

Ric_Stern/RST · September 2007

oldwelshman wrote:

Some one in my club has power tap and the bearings are gone after only a year !!. Well worth the money considerring he got dropped in the club run
As you say, good for pros and elites but not sure about them for us poor clubbies Steve

Some of the older PTs didn't have great bearings. However,
1) if someone had purchased from RST, we a) checked they were good bearings before sending them out (some of them were rough from the outset) and b) replaced FOC those that went crap inside the warranty period (plus a bit longer). Obviously, i have no idea where your team mate got them from

2) the bearing issue has now been solved as all models have nice sealed bearings. Mine were fine after 2 years/1200 hrs use.

Whether he got dropped on the club run is of course a different matter. Just having a power tap (srm, or ergomo) won't allow you to magically improve. You need to use the data in a meaningful way to plan your training. Alternatively, perhaps the rider would have been dropped earlier without the PT and they have improved (i've no idea).

Ultimately, the biggest gains that can be made to our performance are most likely to come from improving the 'engine' (our fitness). Gains from other areas (e.g., fancy wheels, light frames) would be much smaller

Ric

oldwelshman · September 2007

I am sorry but I am sure they can be an assistance to training there is no way could I justify such a cost on a training aid, I would much prefer a good set of wheels.
There is always more than one way to skin a cat.
Asa qulified coach I am sure you could coach some one effectively without a power meter.
I do not really know why but I know several coaches in cycling and all say you have to have a power meter. One even said he would not provide coaching unless his clients had one!!
If the power meters are so good how come beryl Burton still has the majority of cycling records in UK and used a "normal " bike with no gizmos?

I know she was exceptional but the problem with a lot of people is they think if they have best wheel. best bike, power meter, hrm etc they will improve!!!
IMO it is far better to just "do" the miles initially until you get comptetative and then if you get to a really good level as Steve suggested where small differences between competitiors are experienced then they may be justified.
Sorry, but for your average Joe Bloggs they are way too expensive and unnecessary training aid.
One interesting comment was from Mark Canendish dirung the TDF when he said he coverred his up as "it was doing his head in "

Ric_Stern/RST · September 2007

oldwelshman wrote:

I am sorry but I am sure they can be an assistance to training there is no way could I justify such a cost on a training aid, I would much prefer a good set of wheels.

For sure a good set of wheels *could* help, but unless you are right at the top at the limit of your genetic potential, you're going to gain more from quality training than you would from some fancy wheels.

Asa qulified coach I am sure you could coach some one effectively without a power meter.

At RST we coach people without a power meter. However, we much prefer to coach people with a power meter, because it enables us to do so much more for them.

I do not really know why but I know several coaches in cycling and all say you have to have a power meter. One even said he would not provide coaching unless his clients had one!!

if you understand the power data, it is a very 'powerful' tool! it can be used to prescribe training accurately, it can be used to assess your fitness (on a continual basis), it can be used to analyse *exactly* what happened in a race and why the rider, did poorly or well, it can be used to accurately forward plan when an athlete can be at peak fitness.

If the power meters are so good how come beryl Burton still has the majority of cycling records in UK and used a "normal " bike with no gizmos? I know she was exceptional but the problem with a lot of people is they think if they have best wheel. best bike, power meter, hrm etc they will improve!!!

My feeling is that she was one of those very lucky people blessed with immense talent (similar to someone who wins the TdF), it maybe a while before someone that good comes along again.

On the other hand if you don't have good kit you're at a disadvantage. Presumably you don't race on a bike with 27 x 11/4 wheels and a frame made of iron, and 5 speed gears? However, as you allude to it *is* about making your engine as good as possible (given whatever constraints you have). Having a power meter facilitates better training, and you're thus likely to do better

IMO it is far better to just "do" the miles initially until you get comptetative and then if you get to a really good level as Steve suggested where small differences between competitiors are experienced then they may be justified.

if you think just doing the miles (which as far as i'm aware in cycling parlence means lots of steady riding; and i've been racing since '84) is going to get you good or competitive then you really don't understand the concept of good training. Sure, some people will be good with such training, but are they good because of that training or in spite of it?

Sorry, but for your average Joe Bloggs they are way too expensive and unnecessary training aid.

no one has argued that they are cheap. but then cycling isn't particularly cheap (for years my bike was worth more than any car i had). Having said that i often turn up at races and see plenty of expensive bikes. Are power meters necessary? No, of course they're not, but then cycling itself is hardly necessary (unless you perhaps have to commute to work on a bike). They do however make training far more effective, and if you want to maximise your fitness it's the way forward.

One interesting comment was from Mark Canendish dirung the TDF when he said he coverred his up as "it was doing his head in "

And? So what? On the other hand he now has useful Tour data, so that he know what sort of fitness he needs to be competitive. No one said you *have* to look at it during a race.

Ric

BeaconRuth · September 2007

Ric_Stern/RST wrote:

They do however make training far more effective, and if you want to maximise your fitness it's the way forward.

My view is that they are a way forward for some people, they are not the way forward for everybody. And a big element of their suitability for an individual is whether you want to use one. They don't 'do it' for me in the slightest.

I'm still waiting for someone to explain how I'd go faster if I had a powermeter. Maybe I'll pay someone to tell me when I've run out of ideas for improving without one!

Ruth

Ric_Stern/RST · September 2007

[quote="BeaconRuth"I'm still waiting for someone to explain how I'd go faster if I had a powermeter. Maybe I'll pay someone to tell me when I've run out of ideas for improving without one!

Ruth[/quote]

Because you can train more effectively, as you'll know the variables that move you down the road (power output) as opposed to having a variable that is dependent and subject to variations at a given power output (all variables other than power vary at a given intensity depending on conditions, e.g., HR, velocity, PE). That means you then have to guesstimate how hard you or someone you coach are riding at and have no idea of analysing what they've done if you want to be accurate about it (i.e., you can't say with certainty whether someone has improved or not). This maybe okay at low levels of fitness (< race fitness), where large gains are possible and exceed the noise of variations, but once someone is reasonably well trained (i.e., they race, or have the ability to race) then the noise could well cover any gains in fitness.

Ric

BeaconRuth · September 2007

Ric_Stern/RST wrote:

That means you then have to guesstimate how hard you or someone you coach are riding at and have no idea of analysing what they've done if you want to be accurate about it (i.e., you can't say with certainty whether someone has improved or not).

I've never really found this to be a problem. I know accurately enough how hard I'm working when I train and it's my aim to help my riders learn the same skill. My racing tells me very clearly whether I've improved or not and my riders have measurable targets which give them great satisfaction to achieve. Having a numerical power output to confirm improvement wouldn't enhance anything for some people, me included.

This maybe okay at low levels of fitness (< race fitness), where large gains are possible and exceed the noise of variations, but once someone is reasonably well trained (i.e., they race, or have the ability to race) then the noise could well cover any gains in fitness.

Well, that's not my experience, and I think I classify as 'reasonably well trained.'

Ruth

Jeff Jones · September 2007

How about timing yourself up hills and relating it to how hard you're going? This isn't as exact as using power, but if gives you a pretty good indication of your fitness. You can even estimate power if you know the length/gradient of the climb.

SteveR_100Milers · September 2007

jjones wrote:

How about timing yourself up hills and relating it to how hard you're going? This isn't as exact as using power, but if gives you a pretty good indication of your fitness. You can even estimate power if you know the length/gradient of the climb.

Agree, however, this one of the major reasons for riding club 10's. Same course, if they are held weekly during the season then often similar conditions on more than one day / evening, which means you can quantify your performance and monitor a trend. I really think you have to learn how to ride a windy day which will be different to a floater. A power meter can't teach you that.

A hill does the dame thing of course providing you can motivate yourself to ride it equally hard each time (there is a post in here "Unoffial Welsh HIll Climb Times" aiming to do just that).

Ric_Stern/RST · September 2007

jjones wrote:

How about timing yourself up hills and relating it to how hard you're going? This isn't as exact as using power, but if gives you a pretty good indication of your fitness. You can even estimate power if you know the length/gradient of the climb.

This is correct Jeff. However, there is still 'noise' involved -- the climb needs to be fairly slow for external conditions to have less impact (e.g., temp, wind direction/speed). This is quite possible on many of the steep climbs in the UK, however, a lot of those steep climbs are very short and therefore there can be significant contribution from anaerobic energy sources. Depending on your training these may *diminish* as you get (aerobically) fitter which could skew results.

On the longer less steep climbs in the UK you could be travelling too fast (and then air drag is an issue). On long European climbs (e.g. Alps) this would be mitigated as you don't go very fast. However, i for one would find it difficult to get to the Alps every week to test my fitness. Not sure my missus would be that happy with me disappearing as well!!

Ric

Ric_Stern/RST · September 2007

SteveR_100Milers wrote:

jjones wrote:

How about timing yourself up hills and relating it to how hard you're going? This isn't as exact as using power, but if gives you a pretty good indication of your fitness. You can even estimate power if you know the length/gradient of the climb.

Agree, however, this one of the major reasons for riding club 10's. Same course, if they are held weekly during the season then often similar conditions on more than one day / evening, which means you can quantify your performance and monitor a trend. I really think you have to learn how to ride a windy day which will be different to a floater. A power meter can't teach you that.

A hill does the dame thing of course providing you can motivate yourself to ride it equally hard each time (there is a post in here "Unoffial Welsh HIll Climb Times" aiming to do just that).

As a point of interest, my 10mile TT PB required less power than my 10mile 'power' PB (which i did on a crappy night). I see this sort of data all the time with people i coach -- people recording faster times and less power, because they got a float night or better traffic flow etc.

ric

Ric_Stern/RST · September 2007

BeaconRuth wrote:

I've never really found this to be a problem. I know accurately enough how hard I'm working when I train and it's my aim to help my riders learn the same skill.

simply, and without wishing to be denigrating, i simply don't believe you (unless by "accurately enough" you mean not that accurate)

Someone else wrote a reply on this as well (i've zero idea if you're the coach he refers to) http://www.physfarm.com/blog/?p=4#more-4

My racing tells me very clearly whether I've improved or not

Please see my post above to Steve

Ric

Jeff Jones · September 2007

Ric_Stern/RST wrote:

jjones wrote:

How about timing yourself up hills and relating it to how hard you're going? This isn't as exact as using power, but if gives you a pretty good indication of your fitness. You can even estimate power if you know the length/gradient of the climb.

This is correct Jeff. However, there is still 'noise' involved -- the climb needs to be fairly slow for external conditions to have less impact (e.g., temp, wind direction/speed). This is quite possible on many of the steep climbs in the UK, however, a lot of those steep climbs are very short and therefore there can be significant contribution from anaerobic energy sources. Depending on your training these may *diminish* as you get (aerobically) fitter which could skew results.

On the longer less steep climbs in the UK you could be travelling too fast (and then air drag is an issue). On long European climbs (e.g. Alps) this would be mitigated as you don't go very fast. However, i for one would find it difficult to get to the Alps every week to test my fitness. Not sure my missus would be that happy with me disappearing as well!!

No argument that there's noise - it's just a simple method that I like.

The climbs I've been using are between 2-5km and average between 4-10%. Mostly when I do them, there's not much wind. I know that if you get the wind behind you on something like Cheddar Gorge (about 5km at 4%) then it makes quite a difference. But you can take this into account.

In training, I tend to ride climbs without going into the red at all. I use my HRM and feel for this, and I know myself quite well. So maybe the anaerobic component is diminished. And at the end of the day, I'm no slave to the data. I use climbing times merely as an indication of how fit I am, and therefore what I can expect in a race.

That said, I've now got a battery charger for the Ergomo that came with my TT test bike. So I can get some real power numbers to compare with my hill times

oldwelshman · September 2007

If you was raciing in Wales in 84 Ric I should know you as I was riding then first time round

Ric_Stern/RST · September 2007

oldwelshman wrote:

If you was raciing in Wales in 84 Ric I should know you as I was riding then first time round

Nope, sorry, i was based in Manchester until 95, then France, then Eastbourne until '98, then Canterbury, then Eastbourne (again) until 2003 (i think), and then i moved to south Wales (having never been before, i'd only ever been to north Wales).

I did race in Wales in the 80 and 90s but it was north Wales, but in '84 i was only 14/15 y old so only rode local races.

Ric

SteveR_100Milers · September 2007

Ric_Stern/RST wrote:

As a point of interest, my 10mile TT PB required less power than my 10mile 'power' PB (which i did on a crappy night). I see this sort of data all the time with people i coach -- people recording faster times and less power, because they got a float night or better traffic flow etc.

ric

Or a more aero position. Given the logarithmic relationship between speed and power, then small changes in position may result in lower power output (which often happens when you reduce the hip angle, i.e. crouch lower) but the gains in aero efficiency mean an overall increase in speed.

BeaconRuth · September 2007

Ric_Stern/RST wrote:

BeaconRuth wrote:

I've never really found this to be a problem. I know accurately enough how hard I'm working when I train and it's my aim to help my riders learn the same skill.

simply, and without wishing to be denigrating, i simply don't believe you (unless by "accurately enough" you mean not that accurate)

You don't have to believe me. It is my opinion.

Someone else wrote a reply on this as well (i've zero idea if you're the coach he refers to) http://www.physfarm.com/blog/?p=4#more-4

What a hilarious article! "We have the technology. There isn't any excuse anymore." Catchy! I wonder exactly what 'excuses' it's on about?!

(And no, I'm not the coach referred to in the article!

)

My racing tells me very clearly whether I've improved or not

Please see my post above to Steve

So you completely dismiss the possibility that an experienced rider can read the conditions, the course, the performances of other riders and their perception of their own ride, and come to any kind of conclusion about the quality of their performance?

Ruth

nickcuk · September 2007

Back to the original question, surely 3 weeks of holiday induced changes to drinking and eating patterns will also have an effect ? A few extra lbs maybe ?

What's all this about..?

Comments

Categories