Login required to started new threads

Login required to post replies

How "good" is RPE as a training metric?
Quote | Reply
Hi,

In thinking through training metrics, I was wondering how "stable and reliable" is RPE as a training metric for cycling if one already has a knowledge of HR zones or power?

I realize the shortfalls since it's not an objective, repeatable measurement like power, but rather curious if a successful program can be built using RPE as the core metric.

Any studies or experience? It's an interesting question I think given all we now know using quantifiable metrics.

J
Quote Reply
Re: How "good" is RPE as a training metric? [Hoshie99] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Seems to me it would depend highly on how good your "P" was.
Quote Reply
Re: How "good" is RPE as a training metric? [Hoshie99] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Wasn't that long ago this was all people used. It's better than using nothing and training blindly. I could write a decent training plan replacing zone 1 and 2 with the word "easy" and zones 3 and 4 with "comfortably hard," then zones 5+ with "best effort" or "all out." Doesn't give much precision obviously, and will vary day by day depending on fatigue and fitness, but definitely possible to get improvements this way.

Tim Russell, Pro Triathlete

Instagram- @timbikerun
Quote Reply
Re: How "good" is RPE as a training metric? [Hoshie99] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Based on a sample of N=1, it's significantly less accurate for cycling than for running. My RPE on running is pretty good - when I check it against HR and speed I'm usually pretty much exactly where I thought I would be. For cycling, it's still useful but I think perception of how hard you're riding is more easily thrown off by hills, road surface and wind than it is for running.

I would happily do a run program based on RPE only, but would want HR data for any cycling programme more complicated than "just get out and ride your bike".
Quote Reply
Re: How "good" is RPE as a training metric? [cartsman] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Based on a sample of N=1, it's significantly less accurate for cycling than for running. My RPE on running is pretty good - when I check it against HR and speed I'm usually pretty much exactly where I thought I would be. For cycling, it's still useful but I think perception of how hard you're riding is more easily thrown off by hills, road surface and wind than it is for running.

Agreed

I was at my best before any of this technology really came along. Heart rate moitors where starting to make their way in just as I was kind of getting out of triathlons.

I recall winning a HRM when I won a 5km running race late in my active time competing. I did all the tests, figured out all the zones, and wouldn't you know they all matched up with bench-mark paces, efforts and intensities that I had been doing for years!

I have no experience riding with power.



Steve Fleck @stevefleck | Blog
Quote Reply
Re: How "good" is RPE as a training metric? [cartsman] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
cartsman wrote:
Based on a sample of N=1, it's significantly less accurate for cycling than for running. My RPE on running is pretty good - when I check it against HR and speed I'm usually pretty much exactly where I thought I would be. For cycling, it's still useful but I think perception of how hard you're riding is more easily thrown off by hills, road surface and wind than it is for running.

I would happily do a run program based on RPE only, but would want HR data for any cycling programme more complicated than "just get out and ride your bike".

I'm the exact opposite.....but I come from a cycling background. I can paces myself pretty damn accurately on the bike w/o any metrics.

For the run, my cardio engine overestimates how fast I can run for extended periods. Crushed me at Madison this year when I forgot my Garmin off the bike.....I ran WAY too fast to start and paid for it dearly. But it "felt" easy when I was running.

Chicago Cubs - 2016 WORLD SERIES Champions!!!!

"If ever the time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin." - Samuel Adams
Quote Reply
Re: How "good" is RPE as a training metric? [Hoshie99] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
My experience having coached beginners to professionals

Power is best
REP is excellent when well train and calibrated
HR is the last resort.... not great, I dont like it.

Jonathan Caron / Professional Coach / ironman champions / age group world champions
Jonnyo Coaching
Instargram
Quote Reply
Re: How "good" is RPE as a training metric? [Fleck] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Fleck wrote:

I recall winning a HRM when I won a 5km running race late in my active time competing. I did all the tests, figured out all the zones, and wouldn't you know they all matched up with bench-mark paces, efforts and intensities that I had been doing for years!

in desperation at one point, bought a HRM to try Maffetone/Mark Allen style HR training, found the same thing - could always predict my running HR to within 5 beats, based on RPE..

I find RPE and pace work well for running or swimming, but not for cycling. This may be from the inherent variability of cycling effort/speed based on wind, temperature, humidity, road surface etc etc: or it may be because I'm a relatively inexperienced cyclist.
Quote Reply
Re: How "good" is RPE as a training metric? [Power13] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I'm the exact opposite.....but I come from a cycling background. I can paces myself pretty damn accurately on the bike w/o any metrics.

The challenge with cycling is that I sense it takes a long time and years and years of riding to get a feel for what the various intensities are and how that matches up with RPE.

That's why power is so popular with coaches and for people new to cycling. The numbers are the numbers, and they don't lie.


Steve Fleck @stevefleck | Blog
Quote Reply
Re: How "good" is RPE as a training metric? [Hoshie99] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
A series of issues with my power meter meant that I could spot check my RPE with my PM periodically but I couldn't rely on my PM. I learned to pace really well and power readings from a couple of tts proved it. I am not saying that power, if accurate isn't superior, but when my power meter died again right before the state TT championship, I was glad to have a trained sense of effort. I still tend to pace myself that way and review the numbers afterwards.

________________________________________________

Coach Brain: Accelerate 3 ; Incoherent Ramblings
Quote Reply
Re: How "good" is RPE as a training metric? [OkotoksLawyer] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
OkotoksLawyer wrote:
Seems to me it would depend highly on how good your "P" was.


Nailed it. The people who prefer to listen to headphones or only judge everything by what a device tells them, are simply not giving the "Perception" part it's due. RPE is never going to work for them.

(While it might not sound like it, I don't look down on those people. I've had my butt kicked by enough of them enough times to realize that there is more than one way to skin a cat.)

For me, it's the best there is for training. But it requires concentration. And it works a lot better in running than it does in cycling
Last edited by: JoeO: Oct 1, 14 8:00
Quote Reply
Re: How "good" is RPE as a training metric? [Fleck] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Fleck wrote:
I'm the exact opposite.....but I come from a cycling background. I can paces myself pretty damn accurately on the bike w/o any metrics.

The challenge with cycling is that I sense it takes a long time and years and years of riding to get a feel for what the various intensities are and how that matches up with RPE.

That's why power is so popular with coaches and for people new to cycling. The numbers are the numbers, and they don't lie.

Oh yeah....which is exactly why I noted that I come form a cycling background. I have built up a pretty large "data bank" that significantly helps me gauge my efforts on the bike.

I don't have that data bank on the run....and hence my "P" is significantly skewed, especially because the effort level that feels "easy" on the bike is too fast on the run (at least for me).

I guess my point was that it all depends on what your background is.....and that it can greatly impact your RPE in the other sports.

Chicago Cubs - 2016 WORLD SERIES Champions!!!!

"If ever the time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin." - Samuel Adams
Quote Reply
Re: How "good" is RPE as a training metric? [Hoshie99] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Just depends on you.
I was really good at pacing 20min efforts with RPE due to tons of practice at a local TT we used to do every month here. Sometimes with a power meter, sometimes without.

If you dumped me into a 5 minute TT or 60 minute TT without any practice I would not be spot on.

Usually before a big race I do 1 or 2 practice runs with a power meter, paying attention to how it feels pacing it right, so I am ready if the power meter should not be working on race day. Plus, specificity =)

Hoshie99 wrote:
Hi,

In thinking through training metrics, I was wondering how "stable and reliable" is RPE as a training metric for cycling if one already has a knowledge of HR zones or power?

I realize the shortfalls since it's not an objective, repeatable measurement like power, but rather curious if a successful program can be built using RPE as the core metric.

Any studies or experience? It's an interesting question I think given all we now know using quantifiable metrics.

J



Kat Hunter reports on the San Dimas Stage Race from inside the GC winning team
Aeroweenie.com -Compendium of Aero Data and Knowledge
Freelance sports & outdoors writer Kathryn Hunter
Quote Reply
Re: How "good" is RPE as a training metric? [jackmott] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Thanks - that makes sense Jack.

Appreciate the thoughts everyone.

J
Quote Reply