h2ofun wrote:
JasoninHalifax wrote:
You may be onto something, but data is still limited.
The problem is that you only have one data point with 175mm cranks since you started, which means that you have to use old data, and you aren't in the same physical condition as you were a year ago. You may be better, may be worse, may be the same, but that still needs to be controlled for.
looking at R-squares going back to 2016- 0.5 correlation between average rpm (which is an actual rpm, not a guess) and "pulse power", which I'm assuming is your method of normalizing power vs effort? .5 correlation between crank length and pulse power, and .6 between pedal speed and pulse power.
However, if you isolate a specific crank length and similar timeframe (during which your fitness presumably didn't change much), then the correlation disappears. r square between pedal speed and only pulse power drops to 0.2 for 175mm cranks from Oct 30 2016 to Jan 22 2017. for 150's its only 0.02 - i.e. no correlation whatsoever....
My GUESS is that the improvements in power at a particular HR are due primarily to fitness, not crank length or pedal speed, but keep on keepin' on. You may have something, you may not...
h2ofun wrote:
Derekl wrote:
h2ofun wrote:
DBF wrote:
What improvements?
Obviously if you slow down your cadence your heart rate is going to be lower. That is not necessarily better.
Doesn’t anyone read my posts or all the testing we recently posted? Anyhow, it isn’t obvious reducing cadence reduces HR if at the same time one increases ones power. Dave has increased his power about 10% with this change with a slightly lower HR. Tell me you wouldn’t take that change!
Frank Day
"You" shouldn't be allowed to post, Frank.
And Dave didn't increase his power by 10% by changing cadence or crank length. The fact that you two believe that is why nobody is taking any of this seriously.
If you haven’t noticed I am not posting. Dave is simply reposting my thoughts to him (since the protocol is mine and I understand it better than anyone) and being honest in letting you all know those are my thoughts and not his.
That having been said I am curious as to how you would interpret the Martis data regarding whether there has been any real power change or not since starting this effort and if so how to explain it. How should that data be interpreted?
Frank Day
Yep, I train all year long. I try not to get out of shape all year long. I race pretty much all year long. The only thing I stop is swimming for 5 months, which shows in my slow swim times.
From Frank Day
I am a little confused by your conclusions after your analysis. Pulse power is my method of evaluating efficiency at the output we are testing at, not normalizing power vs effort. Anyhow, you are finding a pretty good correlation between pulse power and pedal speed but not when looking at a specific crank length in a small time frame. Not sure what that means but the whole idea of this effort is that crank length doesn’t matter, only pedal speed does, at least when sitting upright. Your analysis would seem to support that idea and support the results of Martin. If that is the case then why are you then saying all this work means nothing and your guess is the improvement seen is due to fitness changes. One other thing that goes against your assessment is, I think, Dave trains differently than most. He seems to take zero time off, doing pretty much the same thing every day of the year. It would seem his fitness never changes significantly. Dave can comment on this better than I but that is my impression.
Frank Day
Where on earth are you getting that I;m saying that all this work means nothing? It isn't well controlled, but aside from that, determining that certain factors are NOT important is as important as determining that other factors are important. Here's the thing, I don't particularly care what the finding is, but you appear to have a bias in wanting to show that your theory is correct. That's fine, it's human nature, but you really have to let go and figure out ways to prove that your theory is wrong. If you try various ways to disprove your own theory, and consistently it comes out that you are unable to do so, then the theory might have merit. But it really looks like you are trying to prove it right rather than try and find ways in which it is wrong.
You are making a very large assumption that Dave's fitness never changes significantly, but a) you are looking for small changes, not significant ones, so a small change in fitness can have a significant impact on that small effect, and b) if you don't actually run regular baseline tests to determine whether Dave's fitness has actually changed or not, that is just an assumption. I, on the other hand, am assuming no such thing. It's a more conservative approach that I'm taking.
(edited point (a) in the last paragraph for clarity)
Swimming Workout of the Day: Favourite Swim Sets: 2020 National Masters Champion - M50-54 - 50m Butterfly