Study of Power meters.They are really same as HR monitors, but lot more expensive.

[elapid]

And now CycleOps is marketing PowerCal, "the world's first-ever power meter calculated from heart rate."

 

[CoachFergie]

And now CycleOps is marketing PowerCal, "the world's first-ever power meter calculated from heart rate."

CycleOps may just be "jumping the shark" there.

 

[Martin318is]

CycleOps may just be "jumping the shark" there.

hey, doubter, it is entirely possible. The only difficult part of the calculation is the usage of GPS to track the position and spin of Uranus

 

[elapid]

You guys make me laugh. A renowned PM manufacturer (Cycleops) comes up with a PM device based on HR and you guys the scoff at the possibility. I'm sure there are some pretty clever people who have worked on this project, just as I am sure that CycleOps would not manufacture and market a product which is a bunch of BS. Keep your GPS on and orbiting your favourite planet and don't embrace the possibility that there is something beyond your orbit, or god forbid your solar system.

 

[Martin318is]

You guys make me laugh. A renowned PM manufacturer (Cycleops) comes up with a PM device based on HR and you guys the scoff at the possibility. I'm sure there are some pretty clever people who have worked on this project, just as I am sure that CycleOps would not manufacture and market a product which is a bunch of BS. Keep your GPS on and orbiting your favourite planet and don't embrace the possibility that there is something beyond your orbit, or god forbid your solar system.

Wow

That has to be the biggest case of no sense of humour that I have seen in a while....

I'm sure that it IS a well researched product. I was just getting in before the anti-powermeter crowd jump in to try and argue that this was somehow proof that powermeters are no different to HRMs. I'd imagine that it is using something like the Polar power meter that uses chain resonance, etc. In this case it would be taking speed and cadence etc and mapping to heartrate... Not likely to be as accurate as strain guages in a hub or BB but also likely to be a lot cheaper...

 

[FrankDay]

Wow

That has to be the biggest case of no sense of humour that I have seen in a while....

I'm sure that it IS a well researched product. I was just getting in before the anti-powermeter crowd jump in to try and argue that this was somehow proof that powermeters are no different to HRMs. I'd imagine that it is using something like the Polar power meter that uses chain resonance, etc. In this case it would be taking speed and cadence etc and mapping to heartrate... Not likely to be as accurate as strain guages in a hub or BB but also likely to be a lot cheaper...

They are not claiming this product is as accurate (regarding actual power to the wheel) as their "real" PM. They are simply saying that power and HR generally correlate well, which I think, is true as long as one is lower than lactate threshold. I am intrigued as to how they do their calibration but I think this product is right in line with the study that started this thread. How much precision is necessary as regards effort feedback to improve performance? That is the question we should really be asking.

 

[elapid]

Wow

That has to be the biggest case of no sense of humour that I have seen in a while....

I'm sure that it IS a well researched product. I was just getting in before the anti-powermeter crowd jump in to try and argue that this was somehow proof that powermeters are no different to HRMs. I'd imagine that it is using something like the Polar power meter that uses chain resonance, etc. In this case it would be taking speed and cadence etc and mapping to heartrate... Not likely to be as accurate as strain guages in a hub or BB but also likely to be a lot cheaper...

I am laughing ... just depends whether it is with or at someone

According to the ad in Bicycling magazine, it will cost less than $200.

 

[acoggan]

They are simply saying that power and HR generally correlate well, which I think, is true as long as one is lower than lactate threshold.

Below VO2max (maximal heart rate), actually...but that is:

1) ignoring (or attempting to account for) HR kinetics, and

2) ignoring cardiac drift, differences in environmental conditions, etc.

In a laboratory setting, you could likely predict steady-state submaximal power to w/in +/-5% based on heart rate.* In the field, though, the error is almost certainly going to be larger.

*Based on laboratory studies showing that heart rate at a fixed power has a day-to-day CV of 5%.

Regardless of the above, I find it interesting that power has supplanted heart rate as a measure of cyclist's exercise intensity to such a degree that CycleOps is marketing a heart rate monitor as a poor man's powermeter.

 

[acoggan]

In a laboratory setting, you could likely predict steady-state submaximal power to w/in +/-5% based on heart rate.

BTW, note that that represents +/- 50% of a typical dedicated cyclist's in-season/out-of-season variation in fitness. Of course, this is one reason why it is so difficult to assess the efficacy of one's training based on only heart rate...

 

[Martin318is]

How much precision is necessary as regards effort feedback to improve performance? That is the question we should really be asking.

Yep - as with most products it will be of most use to some people and less to some others. On the face of it I would say that this would be sufficient for recreational cyclists wishing to improve fitness, etc. For higher level road racers and in particular, sprinters, its not really as useful a product compared to a 'real' powermeter.

So within that framework, your question is interesting.

 

[FrankDay]

Below VO2max (maximal heart rate), actually...but that is:

1) ignoring (or attempting to account for) HR kinetics, and

2) ignoring cardiac drift, differences in environmental conditions, etc.

In a laboratory setting, you could likely predict steady-state submaximal power to w/in +/-5% based on heart rate.* In the field, though, the error is almost certainly going to be larger.

*Based on laboratory studies showing that heart rate at a fixed power has a day-to-day CV of 5%.

Regardless of the above, I find it interesting that power has supplanted heart rate as a measure of cyclist's exercise intensity to such a degree that CycleOps is marketing a heart rate monitor as a poor man's powermeter.

Well, it is about 10% of the cost so I guess it qualifies as a poor man's power meter. Now if only there were only evidence that the rich man's power meter was any better at helping the athlete improve. (We all understand the rich man's power meter is actually more accurate at measuring power.)

 

[FrankDay]

For higher level road racers and in particular, sprinters, its not really as useful a product compared to a 'real' powermeter.

And your scientific evidence in support of that position is…?

 

[Martin318is]

And your scientific evidence in support of that position is…?

Don't need any - its similar to the situation with a simple HRM.

Bearing in mind that I said that the tool may well be fine for people doing longer aerobic efforts -

There has always been an issue for peak interval training with HRMs - the HRM is always playing catch up to the effort rather than telling you what you are actually doing.

If I want to dose an effort of say 15seconds at over 800W and the tool is basing the power numbers on heartrate then it logically falls that I will be riding hard for upwards of 10 seconds before the device starts to show numbers that are valid and then I would shut down before the numbers possibly even stabilised. How would that be useful to me compared to a current powermeter that would show that I did exactly what I planned to do?

 

[42x16ss]

And your scientific evidence in support of that position is…?

You actually KNOW how much power you are putting out instead of guessing. Therefore you KNOW if your output and strength has IMPROVED instead of GUESSING and can adjust your training schedule TO SUIT.

The more of your posts I see the more I wonder. These really aren't arguments that would be made by somebody who trains regularly with athletes of any real level.

Just saying.

 

[Tapeworm]

Also for sprinters the measuring of power is good for ensuring they don't dig too deep a hole, if in a session they suddenly rip out a power PB it would be a real good time to cool down and hit the showers. Not something that would be easy to detect otherwise and the risk of overtraining from there would be very great indeed.

 

[FrankDay]

You actually KNOW how much power you are putting out instead of guessing. Therefore you KNOW if your output and strength has IMPROVED instead of GUESSING and can adjust your training schedule TO SUIT.

The more of your posts I see the more I wonder. These really aren't arguments that would be made by somebody who trains regularly with athletes of any real level.

Just saying.

If you would review my question I asked for what the scientific evidence was to support his position, not what the argument was to support his position.

 

[FrankDay]

Also for sprinters the measuring of power is good for ensuring they don't dig too deep a hole, if in a session they suddenly rip out a power PB it would be a real good time to cool down and hit the showers. Not something that would be easy to detect otherwise and the risk of overtraining from there would be very great indeed.

And, you have some scientific evidence to support that statement? Perhaps you could direct us towards it.

 

[FrankDay]

And your scientific evidence in support of that position is…?

Don't need any.

You heard it here first folks.

 

[Tapeworm]

And, you have some scientific evidence to support that statement? Perhaps you could direct us towards it.

Which part Frank? What overtraining is, the fact the power meter can record a PB effort, or the reason why it's not good to overtrain?

I would have thought most would be self-evident but I can break it down further if you like.

 

[FrankDay]

Which part Frank? What overtraining is, the fact the power meter can record a PB effort, or the reason why it's not good to overtrain?

I would have thought most would be self-evident but I can break it down further if you like.

Last I looked, PM's do not record PB efforts, stop watches do.
Anyhow, the statement directed towards yourself that I was requesting some scientific support for was:

Also for sprinters the measuring of power is good for ensuring they don't dig too deep a hole, if in a session they suddenly rip out a power PB it would be a real good time to cool down and hit the showers. Not something that would be easy to detect otherwise and the risk of overtraining from there would be very great indeed.

 

[Martin318is]

You heard it here first folks.

Wow... not sure what to say about that post... As was pointed out just above, it is very clear that you spend a lot of time in literature and not a lot around racing road cyclists. If you did, you would have a lot better grasp of the realities of racing and training for racing. I conceed that you appear to know some endurance riders and perhaps some triathletes but when was the last time you actually attended a race?

The reason I said I don't need scientific evidence for that comment is that it is a quite well known issue for sprinters in particular - if you meet one, ask them how they do their sub 1min efforts. They may use a PM, they may use PE, but it would be very surprising to find a successful elite road sprinter that bothered looking at their HR at that intensity.

Ignoring any discussion of training plans, methodologies, or any of that stuff and just looking at the situation I described... If my goal is to ride at a specific level for a specific short period, a powermeter will show instantaneously that I am at that level and that I am holding it. A HRM will eventually get to around the equivalent heartrate several seconds after the effort starts (and in some cases AFTER the effort is over).

WHY you are wanting to ride at that level for that period is a function of training plan, not recording method.

Last I looked, PM's do not record PB efforts, stop watches do.

Wow, I stand corrected, you really have NO idea at all do you? For a road sprinter to take that attitude they would need to kick off their sprint at exactly the same distance from the line, every single time. When was the last time anyone did THAT? They CAN however have a personal best power output for any given timerange.

redefinition of the discussion through focussing upon a minor triviality in 5..... 4..... 3..... 2....

 

[42x16ss]

Last I looked, PM's do not record PB efforts, stop watches do.
Anyhow, the statement directed towards yourself that I was requesting some scientific support for was:

No, no, no, no, NO! Stopwatches record BEST TIME NOT BEST EFFORT!

How do you miss this!!!???

So you are saying I put out more effort in a 100m sprint when there's a tailwind than I do into a headwind simply because I take less time???

That makes sense.

 

[42x16ss]

Wow... not sure what to say about that post... As was pointed out just above, it is very clear that you spend a lot of time in literature and not a lot around racing road cyclists. If you did, you would have a lot better grasp of the realities of racing and training for racing. I conceed that you appear to know some endurance riders and perhaps some triathletes but when was the last time you actually attended a race?

The reason I said I don't need scientific evidence for that comment is that it is a quite well known issue for sprinters in particular - if you meet one, ask them how they do their sub 1min efforts. They may use a PM, they may use PE, but it would be very surprising to find a successful elite road sprinter that bothered looking at their HR at that intensity.

Ignoring any discussion of training plans, methodologies, or any of that stuff and just looking at the situation I described... If my goal is to ride at a specific level for a specific short period, a powermeter will show instantaneously that I am at that level and that I am holding it. A HRM will eventually get to around the equivalent heartrate several seconds after the effort starts (and in some cases AFTER the effort is over).

WHY you are wanting to ride at that level for that period is a function of training plan, not recording method.



Wow, I stand corrected, you really have NO idea at all do you? For a road sprinter to take that attitude they would need to kick off their sprint at exactly the same distance from the line, every single time. When was the last time anyone did THAT? They CAN however have a personal best power output for any given timerange.

redefinition of the discussion through focussing upon a minor triviality in 5..... 4..... 3..... 2....

Martin, I'm starting to suspect this thread is brought to us by the letters _______

When somebody starts arguing with coaches and physiologists like Alex, Hamish and acoggan (if he's who I think he is) then I'm not too confident trivialities like logic and proven training methods are going to work...

 

[Martin318is]

To quote the immortal Bart Simpon, given that I have also come to the realisation that I am dealing with someone who is journal fixated but real world naive, "I'd just like to use this occasion to announce my retirement, undefeated from the world of video boxing."

I am adding this thread to the only other one that I am ignoring and leaving other moderators to deal with. Have fun follks if you choose to stay and continue the merry-go-round.

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Participating in a forum discussion with Frank is a bit like eating at McDonalds. You do it occasionally as a reminder not to go back again for some time.