Study on the usefulness of a power over other metrics

[acoggan]

Dr. Coggan, some things i do not agree with you:

Peak performance or Periodization using PM (NP, IF, TSS) is just another word for "periodization" (you might call it block or just periodization)

Is there any advantages over old drunken Russians?
I love your book (can i get autograph)

"HR is your body response to the pressure you are exerting on the pedals..." you say so

"Approximate HR guidelines have been provided so that they can be used along with power to help guide training if desired..." your words

You also make some comparation of cyclist who previosly used HRM and switched to PM to begin to understand relation between his HR zones and his new wattage levels.

So his power is on treshold level but his HR can be found in two or three HR training zones, ok. What does it tell us? Maybe he is tired after 2 hours of riding, do not you think so? So that is a answer why his HR zones does not corelate with watts, we are getting tired.

Determination of Treshold HR from distribution chart from PM software?
What is that?

I would attempt to address your questions/concerns, but the language barrier is so great that I'm not really sure what they are (I'm sure your English is better than my Slovenian, though).

 

[acoggan]

The HR is, by definition, novel, in that there is nothing else that gives the same information. HR information is specific and unique, therefore novel.

By "novel" I meant non-redundant...that is, there are no decisions w/ respect to training, pacing, etc., that can only be made using heart rate (much less better made using heart rate).

Discovering what one might be able to do with a PM did not suddenly make what one could or could not do with a HRM irrelevant or redundant.

Actually, it did. That is, before the advent of on-bike powermeters the only objective data available to cyclists was speed, which as we all know is often a poor indicator of exercise intensity (even though it works quite well in other sports, e.g., swimming, running). Thus, heart rate monitors served a purpose in that, even though heart rate is a response variable, it was at least objective (versus the subjective measurement of perceived exertion). With a powermeter, however, monitoring heart rate no longer serves a useful purpose, as both the stimulus (exercise intensity) and the integrated response can be determined without one.

power is not the only measure of exercise intensity to reference PE. How on earth do the runners do it? How did Merckx do it in the days before PM?

By measuring speed (time to complete a known distance). Unfortunately, while that approach works quite well for runners or for cyclists competing under relatively constant conditions (e.g., on an indoor track), the speed of "free range" athletes such as road cyclists (or Nordic skiers) varies quite a bit more, even when exercise intensity is constant. Hence, the usefulness of a powermeter for "calibrating" perceived exertion.

if power were the only available measure of "stimulus" you might have a point

No one said that it was. It is, however, the only readily available measure, as you can't measure ATP turnover directly while cycling outdoors, and portable metabolic systems to quantify ATP turnover indirectly (via measurement of respiratory gas exchange) are more cumbersome, more expensive, and less accurate than powermeters.

but as I pointed out above, the runners seem to do a pretty good job of it without a PM in sight

That's because 1) the speed of a runner is much less dependent upon, e.g., environmental conditions than the speed of a cyclist, and 2) flat, accurately-measured running tracks are commonplace, whereas velodromes are not.

and cyclists somehow seemed to manage before the PM was available.

And Columbus "managed" to navigate from Europe to North America using only the stars...but I'm willing to bet if he'd had a GPS, he would have relied on it instead.

Where is your data to prove these other, less direct, methods "weaker" from an outcome point of view?

Well some of it can be found here:

http://www.usacycling.org/forms/records.pdf

 

[FrankDay]

By "novel" I meant non-redundant...that is, there are no decisions w/ respect to training, pacing, etc., that can only be made using heart rate (much less better made using heart rate).

If that is your definition of novel then the same can be said for pretty much everything the athlete uses including your vaunted power meter. All training decisions regarding cycling racing can be made based solely on PE and a clock. By your definition of "novel" everything else is redundant.

Actually, it did. That is, before the advent of on-bike powermeters the only objective data available to cyclists was speed, which as we all know is often a poor indicator of exercise intensity (even though it works quite well in other sports, e.g., swimming, running). Thus, heart rate monitors served a purpose in that, even though heart rate is a response variable, it was at least objective (versus the subjective measurement of perceived exertion). With a powermeter, however, monitoring heart rate no longer serves a useful purpose, as both the stimulus (exercise intensity) and the integrated response can be determined without one.

Well, you state that speed is a poor indicator of intensity for cyclists but I simply disagree. If one chooses ones time well (6AM) one can pretty reliably find calm conditions to do testing. Further, speed not only tests power but also aerodynamics and it usually overall speed that determines bike races, not power. So, if you make these assertions that one thing is superior to another to helping one to race better wouldn't it be nice to have some data to support the assertion?

By measuring speed (time to complete a known distance). Unfortunately, while that approach works quite well for runners or for cyclists competing under relatively constant conditions (e.g., on an indoor track), the speed of "free range" athletes such as road cyclists (or Nordic skiers) varies quite a bit more, even when exercise intensity is constant. Hence, the usefulness of a powermeter for "calibrating" perceived exertion.

Not if one chooses his conditions wisely. Even if what you say is true, there is still no evidence that the more accurate approach of the PM results in superior outcome. In fact, if that were true, with the number of athletes who use one it would seem impossible for an athlete who didn't use one to ever become world champion. Such simply isn't the case.

No one said that it was. It is, however, the only readily available measure, as you can't measure ATP turnover directly while cycling outdoors, and portable metabolic systems to quantify ATP turnover indirectly (via measurement of respiratory gas exchange) are more cumbersome, more expensive, and less accurate than powermeters.

You forgot PE and the stopwatch on your measures. And, the metabolic systems probably are a better measure of stimulus to the body but they are less accurate in predicting outcome because they do not measure efficiency.

And Columbus "managed" to navigate from Europe to North America using only the stars...but I'm willing to bet if he'd had a GPS, he would have relied on it instead.

Having spent a fair amount of time in the Navy I can assure you that even modern navigators use all the tools at their disposal and I can assure you that the Navy has not given up on the stars. Never know if one will lose GPS and you want a check on the system anyhow.

Well some of it can be found here:

http://www.usacycling.org/forms/records.pdf

I counter your "proof" with one name: Chrissie Wellington.

 

[Tapeworm]

Frank makes a fair point, would the lack of hr data in your example improve analysis or not? I'm also curious.

The data presented is self evident.

Or: it is what it is.

 

[FrankDay]

The data presented is self evident.

Or: it is what it is.

Without the context in which it was collected that data is just a bunch of numbers with essentially no meaning. So, in a sense you are correct, it is what it is. But, what on earth was your point in presenting it in this thread?

 

[Tapeworm]

...Further, speed not only tests power but also aerodynamics and it usually overall speed that determines bike races, not power...

Or HR for that matter.

If only a power meter could help with aerodynamics... oh that's right, it can.

 

[FrankDay]

Or HR for that matter.

If only a power meter could help with aerodynamics... oh that's right, it can.

But, not uniquely. The problem is not what can it do but can it do it better or cheaper than what was before. I would guess than less than 1% of the PM users out there know of the ability to get this information from the device and probably less than 5% of those have actually done so.

 

[Tapeworm]

Without the context in which it was collected that data is just a bunch of numbers with essentially no meaning. So, in a sense you are correct, it is what it is. But, what on earth was your point in presenting it in this thread?

Because the way people choose to interpret the data can provide a lot more information about the person doing the interpreting.

 

[Tapeworm]

But, not uniquely. The problem is not what can it do but can it do it better or cheaper than what was before. I would guess than less than 1% of the PM users out there know of the ability to get this information from the device and probably less than 5% of those have actually done so.

Based on.... [insert facts here]

 

[FrankDay]

Based on.... [insert facts here]

Are you ever going to let us know why you posted that "testing" data? What was the point you were trying to make?

 

[FrankDay]

Because the way people choose to interpret the data can provide a lot more information about the person doing the interpreting.

So, the point of the post for this thread? What did you learn about me? What did you learn about the others who agreed with my questions to you about the data?

 

[CoachFergie]

You're trumpeting a tautology: 'More power is more power." That is so true. But the debate here is not really about whether more power is really more power. The debate here is whether HR is completelely valueless in all circumstances or whether it has some value in some circumstances. In other words, you don't need HR because you can rely on PE and your powermeter.

Valueless, no. I don't think you will win many bike races without a heart beat.

I started cycling and coaching back in the days of going by feel. I say going by feel as I had never heard of Gunnar Borg at the time. Heart rate monitors were the new fad and I had a wee dabble myself and tried to use them as a coaching tool and in the end went back to feel prescribing training efforts like 5 x 5min at pursuit pace etc. When Graeme Obree visited NZ in 1997 he said I was a very progressive coach for doing this as he had gone by feel right from the outset.

The value of the number is what it tells us. Wattage tells us so much while HR is affected by so many different variables at any given point it's message is usually well hidden.

The main thing I drew from the original study was the difference in variability between heart rate and wattage. Wattage is so much more sensitive a measure while riding a bike and unlike heart rate higher watts is better and lower is worse making it is a far better measure if things are heading South to look at other things to check for injury, illness or overtraining.

 

[CoachFergie]

So, the point of the post for this thread? What did you learn about me? What did you learn about the others who agreed with my questions to you about the data?

The point: scientific evidence that a power meter is the better metric for measuring cycling performance than HR.

About you: muddied waters are the natural environment of the Snake Oil salesman.

About others: some people have much to learn but this does not hold them back from making pointless comments on cycling forums.

Next will discuss Lim's two studies about the validity of a power meter for measuring aerodynamics and rolling resistance plus male and female cyclists during a stage race.

 

[oldborn]

I would attempt to address your questions/concerns, but the language barrier is so great that I'm not really sure what they are (I'm sure your English is better than my Slovenian, though).

I am not Slovenian
Let KISS do all job.
Dr. Coggan, some things i do not agree with you:

I do not agree with yours "Peak performance" term or Periodization using PM (NP, IF, TSS) it is just another word for "periodization" (you might call it block or just periodization)

My Q : "Is there any advantages over old drunken Russians periodization school?

Your words from PM book: "HR is your body response to the pressure you are exerting on the pedals..."
My thoughts: Yes it is, and we should monitor those signs as well.


Your words from PM book: "Approximate HR guidelines have been provided so that they can be used along with power to help guide training if desired..."
My thoughts: You are not consistent. Do you beleive in HRM or not?

My thoughts based on that book paragraph: "You also make some comparation of cyclist who previosly used HRM and switched to PM to begin to understand relation between his HR zones and his new wattage levels.
So his power is on treshold level but his HR can be found in two or three HR training zones, ok. What does it tell us? Maybe he is tired after 2 hours of riding, do not you think so? So that is a answer why his HR zones does not corelate with watts, we are getting tired"

Your words from PM book again: "Determination of Treshold HR from distribution chart from PM software"
My thoughts: You are not consistent. Do you beleive in HRM or not?

I still see some HR monitor machines in hospital