Study on the usefulness of a power over other metrics

[CoachFergie]

Then, you are trying to say outcome is improved from use of the device compared to other methods of trying to do the same thing. PROVE IT!

Wow unleash the fury of caplocks and bold. You must mean business Frank

I am trying to say the OUTCOME is MEASURED and I have supplied more than adequate PROOF

 

[M Sport]

If I want to build a square box I don't need a tape measure. I can simply use the first cut to measure the next three and a length of string to measure the diagonals. Having a tape measure doesn't make the box more square even though you might be able to more accurately tell me what the length of each side is. If the objective is to build a square box the tape measure simply wastes time. If the objective is to know how long each side is then the tape measure is a necessity. What is the goal? Does the tool help you to better reach the goal or a better job in some superfluous operation related to the goal?

Sure building a box is easy.

If you needed to build a second and third box, ten percent bigger the first time and eight percent biger the next time you're going to struggle without a tape measure or similar though.

 

[Tapeworm]

Well, all else being equal, an increase in HR does usually equal an ability to pump more blood in a minute (CO=HR x SV), which usually is associated with an increased performance if HCT is constant. In the face of a fixed HCT, increasing max HR is usually associated with an increased VO2 max. Changes in HR tells you a lot about the physiology of the person, assuming all else is equal and of course, assuming you have to have done the work to understand how to evaluate this. Perhaps you haven't done this yet.

So a higher HR always means improved performance? No?

Well, higher power means higher power.

 

[FrankDay]

So a higher HR always means improved performance? No?

Well, higher power means higher power.

Well, without some context neither one means very much. Is 200 watts performed at 75% VO2 max better than 150 watts performed at 40% VO2max? Is 200 watts at a HR of 150 when the max HR for the rider is 175 better than a rider doing 200 watts at a HR of 160 with a max HR of 220?

Context is everything when it comes to evaluating this data, don't ya think? The numbers are useless without context.

 

[FrankDay]

Sure building a box is easy.

If you needed to build a second and third box, ten percent bigger the first time and eight percent biger the next time you're going to struggle without a tape measure or similar though.

The Egyptians managed to build some pretty amazing stuff without tape measures, as did the Greeks and Romans. I think I learned how to make a line 10% longer without a tape measure in 8th grade geometry class, did you miss that? And, the tape measure doesn't help the builder obtain the 10% or 8% longer wood necessary to build that bigger box.

It wasn't until the age of assembly lines and mass production that builders seem to think that measuring tapes particularly useful or helpful to their task. Guess that is what the PM is trying to do, give all who use it the same average outcome. Do ya think?

 

[Tapeworm]

Well, without some context neither one means very much. Is 200 watts performed at 75% VO2 max better than 150 watts performed at 40% VO2max? Is 200 watts at a HR of 150 when the max HR for the rider is 175 better than a rider doing 200 watts at a HR of 160 with a max HR of 220?

Context is everything when it comes to evaluating this data, don't ya think? The numbers are useless without context.

Well let's put this into some context.

Two maximal 5 min efforts, done by the same rider 6 months apart:-
1) 350 watts at 178bpm
2) 300 watts at 181bpm

Looking at the bare data what does HR tell us and what does power tell us?

 

[FrankDay]

Well let's put this into some context.

Two maximal 5 min efforts, done by the same rider 6 months apart:-
1) 350 watts at 178bpm
2) 300 watts at 181bpm

Looking at the bare data what does HR tell us and what does power tell us?

Not much unless we know what went on during the period and if there are any confounding factors in play at either measurement.

 

[Tapeworm]

It wouldn't indicate that the rider is producing more power in the first session than the second? And that HR is largely unchanged. Wouldn't that be a fair conclusion to draw Frank?

 

[FrankDay]

It wouldn't indicate that the rider is producing more power in the first session than the second? And that HR is largely unchanged. Wouldn't that be a fair conclusion to draw Frank?

Well, those numbers would seemingly indicate that but it is hardly meaningful of anything beyond those numbers without more context. There is a substantial drop in power for the same HR suggesting substantial detraining, but other explanations are possible. So, that data, as it stands by itself, is pretty worthless to draw any conclusions. Are you trying to make the point the data would be more meaningful if the HR data wasn't included and all you had was two power tests 6 months apart showing a 50 watt drop?

What is your point?

 

[Tapeworm]

That you are incapable of drawing simple conclusions?

It is what it is Frank, in that with the data presented one can conclude that for the test in question HR was largely unchanged and that power dropped 50 watts.

 

[FrankDay]

That you are incapable of drawing simple conclusions?

It is what it is Frank, in that with the data presented one can conclude that for the test in question HR was largely unchanged and that power dropped 50 watts.

Well, I can conclude that is what the data is. I have no information that states the data is correct? Was the PM calibrated? I have no information that the conditions were the same. Was one 5 minute interval done when the rider was fresh and the other after a 5 hour hard ride? Or, one done in 50 degree conditions and the other 115 degree conditions? So, I can draw no conclusions about what it means in regards to the specific athlete without some further information. Can you? If so, please tell us how. Would this data be more useful to you for that purpose if it didn't include the HR data? Two tests 6 months apart giving 350 and 300 watts. Tell us what it all means.

 

[Tapeworm]

It tells me quite a bit Frank, quite a bit indeed.

 

[M Sport]

That you are incapable of drawing simple conclusions?

That's Frank's specialty. Argueing semantics, ignoring a simple question or observation and turning into an argument about something that wasn't even implied, let alone stated.

Case in point. I make an observation that I could tell you from looks which pieces of wood are longer, but if I really wanted to know measurements I would go and get a tape measure. And that in a way a power meter is a measurement tool to a performance cyclist just like the tape measure is to a builder.

Frank interprets this as;

Frank can build a square box without a tape measure.
The Egyptians built some amazing structures.
Frank at high school could divide a line on a pice of paper in ten.
Power meter users are after an easy way out and looking for an average outcome.

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Far more better solution is to hire a coach for 2 years for that money, i am giving my right arm that we should benefit far more.

Try a leg instead. Works for me

 

[acoggan]

Wow unleash the fury of caplocks and bold. You must mean business Frank

I am trying to say the OUTCOME is MEASURED and I have supplied more than adequate PROOF

Phooey.

 

[JayKosta]

Can heart rate (HR) be used to detect any useful physiological information for purposes of training, recovery, etc.?

Is there a way to use both HR and power measurement together to give more effective training than when they are use separately?

What are the reasons to use only HR, or only power measurement, as a training tool?

Jay Kosta
Endwell NY USA

 

[function]

It tells me quite a bit Frank, quite a bit indeed.

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

 

[acoggan]

Can heart rate (HR) be used to detect any useful physiological information for purposes of training, recovery, etc.?

I cannot think of any way that knowing your heart rate represents novel "actionable intelligence".

Is there a way to use both HR and power measurement together to give more effective training than when they are use separately?

I have yet to see anyone come up with such a way.

What are the reasons to use only HR, or only power measurement, as a training tool?

One reason to ignore heart rate is that it encourages you to focus on your perception of effort, which reflects myriad aspects of physiological strain, not just how fast your heart is beating.

 

[FrankDay]

I cannot think of any way that knowing your heart rate represents novel "actionable intelligence".

Really? I can and actually posted some of the uses above and indeed, the HR is a "novel" physiologic metric that could result in actionable intelligence. The fact you cannot think of any way this could be used does not mean that no way exists.

I have yet to see anyone come up with such a way.

Then you didn't read my earlier post. Anyhow, it certainly seems strange to me as to why all the PM manufacturers pretty much include the ability to measure both HR and power at the same time if nobody has ever proposed that both power and HR together would be useful. This would do nothing more than increase the cost of the device for no perceived benefit.

One reason to ignore heart rate is that it encourages you to focus on your perception of effort, which reflects myriad aspects of physiological strain, not just how fast your heart is beating.

By the same token, ignoring power encurages the athlete to focus on PE.

Anyhow, "ignoring" HR means one could never use it as a check on perceived effort. To me the value of the HRM device (similar to the PM device) is as a check/validation device to PE, not something to focus on to control workouts/racing. You are seemingly so locked into the PM being a primary feedback device that you can't see how the PM or other devices might be used in a secondary role to validate PE.

 

[acoggan]

Really? I can and actually posted some of the uses above

No, you did not. That is, none of the examples you provided show how knowing your heart rate represents novel information.

it certainly seems strange to me as to why all the PM manufacturers pretty much include the ability to measure both HR and power at the same time if nobody has ever proposed that both power and HR together would be useful. This would do nothing more than increase the cost of the device for no perceived benefit.

When you consider the history of things, it is not suprising at all. Heart rate monitors were developed/commercialized before powermeters, with one consequence being that everyone took a very "cardiocentric" point-of-view (e.g., witness the heart rate vs. power graph included in the SRM software). Then in 1999 some smartass exercise physiologist got hold of a powermeter and showed the world all the amazing things you could learn from using one.

By the same token, ignoring power encurages the athlete to focus on PE.

On the contrary: perceived exertion is meaningless without some absolute measure of exercise intensity against which to reference it.

Anyhow, "ignoring" HR means one could never use it as a check on perceived effort. To me the value of the HRM device (similar to the PM device) is as a check/validation device to PE, not something to focus on to control workouts/racing. You are seemingly so locked into the PM being a primary feedback device that you can't see how the PM or other devices might be used in a secondary role to validate PE.

It is illogical to suggest that perceived exertion should be "validated" against heart rate when both are response variables. Only when you don't know the stimulus (i.e., the actual exercise intensity, as measured by, e.g., power) must one fall back on this weaker/less direct approach.

 

[MarkvW]

utility

So a higher HR always means improved performance? No?

Well, higher power means higher power.

It wouldn't indicate that the rider is producing more power in the first session than the second? And that HR is largely unchanged. Wouldn't that be a fair conclusion to draw Frank?

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.

 

[oldborn]

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?

 

[oldborn]

The debate here is whether HR is completelely valueless in all circumstances or whether it has some value in some circumstances.

Off course it has some values and disadvantages as opium does

We should ask some dying patients: "Morphine is not good for your health, and we are going to unpluged you from it"

I still see some marathon world champions running based on their PE and HR Do they have PM?

 

[FrankDay]

No, you did not. That is, none of the examples you provided show how knowing your heart rate represents novel information.

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.

When you consider the history of things, it is not suprising at all. Heart rate monitors were developed/commercialized before powermeters, with one consequence being that everyone took a very "cardiocentric" point-of-view (e.g., witness the heart rate vs. power graph included in the SRM software). Then in 1999 some smartass exercise physiologist got hold of a powermeter and showed the world all the amazing things you could learn from using one.

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. Even though related they represent two completely different pieces of information.

On the contrary: perceived exertion is meaningless without some absolute measure of exercise intensity against which to reference it.

Well, 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?

Only when you don't know the stimulus (i.e., the actual exercise intensity, as measured by, e.g., power) must one fall back on this weaker/less direct approach.

Well, if power were the only available measure of "stimulus" you might have a point but as I pointed out above, the runners seem to do a pretty good job of it without a PM in sight and cyclists somehow seemed to manage before the PM was available. Your argument is the PM is a "better" measurement of these stresses. But, how do you define better? In my book, different is not necessarily "better" unless it results in improved outcome and no data exists that this is the case. Therefore, it is reasonable to question the assertion these other less direct approaches really are "weaker" as you assert. You wrote the book. Where is your data to prove these other, less direct, methods "weaker" from an outcome point of view?

 

[oldborn]

How did Merckx do it in the days before PM?

And with his steel or alu bike and methodology of training these days, he can put 2/3 of TDF or Giro peloton in hurt locker today, without PM.