There are other factors at play outside, and going up hill, not just those you list above.

Also, from my own experience, my power is down inside regardless of the bike I am on. My outside power is pretty close on both my TT bike and road bike.

---

On the internet, you can be anything you want. It is a pity so many people choose to be stupid.

Yes most people's power is down indoors due to lack of cooling. But does this lack of cooling lower blood lactate threshold which is the justification given for using FTP.

Add TT bike in aero position and sustainable power will be down even further.

But blood lactate threshold will not occur at a lower power.

Not exactly, FTP is just supposed to be a general reflection of your sustainable, aerobic power. Whether that corresponds with a particular measure of lactate threshold, depends on which measure of lactate threshold you compare it too. They will tend to be close since they are all after the same basic idea.

The various differences you might get between uphill/road bike/tt bike should not be *that* large. 10/15 watts or so.

Since zones are rather large, fuzzy ranges, it isn't important that you nail your FTP down to the exact watt. Similarly, since tracking your TSS is just a general, high level way to track your training load, it doesn't matter if your FTP is off a little.

Use a consistent method to track your FTP and you will have a consistent way to track your training load and learn what it means for you. part art, part science, remember.

---

---

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

Dr Coggan chose 60 minute power because it correlates well with blood lactate threshold.

""Basis for system/number of levels
Power at lactate threshold (LT) is the most important physiological determinant of endurance cycling performance, since it integrates VO2max, the percentage of VO2max that can be sustained for a given duration, and cycling efficiency. As such, it is more logical to define training levels relative to an athlete's threshold power, vs., for example, power at VO2max (just as it is more logical to define HR-based training levels relative to threshold HR vs. maximal HR). On the other hand, determining the appropriate number of levels is somewhat arbitrary, since the physiological responses to exercise really fall on a continuum, with one intensity domain simply blending into the next. A compromise must therefore be made between defining more levels, thus better reflecting this fact, and defining fewer levels, for the sake of simplicity. In the present system, seven levels were felt to be the minimum needed to represent the full range of physiological responses and to adequately describe the different types of training required/used to meet the demands of competitive cycling. The table shown below lists the primary physiological adaptations expected to result from training at each level, although these will obviously be influenced by factors such as the initial fitness of the individual, the duration of each workout, the time taken between each interval effort, etc.""

Many riders find there is far more than a mere 10 to 15 watt difference.

The whole point of estimating FTP is to find power at lactate threshold so you can train accordingly.

It is also clear from this article below, which Dr Coggan recently posted on another forum, that he based the whole system, IF and TSS on blood lactate data.

""To derive an appropriate algorithm, I relied on blood lactate data
collected from a large number of trained cyclists exercising at
intensities both below and above their LT. This choice was made because many physiological responses (e.g., muscle glycogen and bloodglucose
utilization, catecholamine levels, ventilation) tend to parallel changes
in blood lactate during exercise – in this context, then, blood lactate
levels can be viewed as an overall index of physiological stress. To
reduce variability between individuals, the data were normalized by
expressing both the power output and the corresponding blood lactate
level as a percentage of that measured at LT. The normalized data were then used to derive a best-fit curve.""

http://lists.topica.com/lists/wattage/read/message.html?mid=907028398&sort=d&start=9353

Important bit in that quote there:

"On the other hand, determining the appropriate number of levels is somewhat arbitrary, since the physiological responses to exercise really fall on a continuum, with one intensity domain simply blending into the next."

---

---

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

True, and there is no need to stay in the zones anyway, but you should nail down FTP or LT accurately otherwise you may find you are riding too far below LT to get the optimum benefit.

If your FTP on a road bike outdoors up hill is 250 watts and your TT bike indoors FTP is only 225 watts and you set your FTP to the indoor TT figure you won't be doing your 2x 20 min at FTP at blood lactate threshold but 25 watts below it. Consequently you might not get the expected benefit. Add to this the uncertainty of estimating your FTP anyway and frankly many people are training no where near optimally because they are basing their training on the wrong power numbers.

Don't make excuses. Find your highest FTP from any one (or combination) of the disciplines and set your zones by that. Then train using these zones in all of the disciplines, indoors and out. The more you do it, the easier it will get.

---

---

I think if you are 25 watts difference from one bike to another you might fix the problem that is on the lower bike.

But, you should also notice obvious signs that things are wrong, like a 2x20@ ftp is easy

or 5x5@vo2 is impossible, etc

---

---

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

Agreed, but then I know of situations where someone has found the difference between one TT set up and another is faster despite their power being down by 25 watts though.

Many riders can put out 25 watts more than on their TT bike.

Perhaps as technology improves we will soon be able to establish LT in real time on the bike, see if it is different on a road bike, TT bike indoors etc and train accordingly. Hope so.

Mind you that assumes there is a point in knowing power at blood lactate threshold.

It sounds like you're new to power. FTP is not going to be directly at LT. Lactate threshold is a term that a lot of people throw around as a proxy for paces and power of certain durations, but in the scientific community it's defined as a rise of 1mm of lactate over baseline levels. It's an intensity that can be maintained for 2-3 hours in well trained individuals (e.g. elite marathoners will race at their lactate threshold). FTP will be more closely aligned with (but not exactly aligned with) maximal lactate steady state (MLSS). My advice to you is to stop worrying about lactate and lactate terms because your performance will let you know whether or not you're improving.

Regarding the setting of your FTP, if you have differences of over 10-15 watts between climbing, outdoors in the TT position, and indoors on the trainer, you should worry about minimizing those differences first and foremost. L4/the "threshold" level as Coggan defines it is pretty large--using your example of a 250 watt FTP, it would be between 232 and 263. Levels and zones make things easier to break up, but training is all on a continuum so as long as your somewhat close, you're still going to be getting the benefits.

I know all that, and I know damn well what FTP is and if you read what I posted and things I have posted about FTP and the various definitions of LT you will see which definition of LT Coggan uses. And yes he does use the one you mentioned because he found that sustainable power over 60 minutes most closely correlates to it.


If you don't agree with me fine, but please argue about what I have said rather than try to tell people I must be new to power. I have used power since 1996.

The fact is many riders can't produce anywhere near their road bike power on a TT bike, and due to aerodynamics they actually go faster in a position which compromises power. Most riders produce far less power indoors.

I don't worry about this stuff for myself but I do worry so many cyclists are basing their training on a badly estimated FTP. Many are doing 20 min efforts they believe to be near FTP, but because they have based it on their TT bike performance they are in fact training well under Their true FTP.


If you knew much about aerodynamics and the speed gains that can be made you would know that a small 10 to 15 watt difference in sustainable power is an acceptable power loss, many top class TT riders will be sacrificing far more power than that.

I suggest you look over on the wattage forum at a recent thread called Fuzzy Threshold Power where most of this is hashed out with Coggan himself. Specifically he says the following:

from: https://groups.google.com/...jpm8%5B1-25-false%5D

That's in reply to a specific question, but you can see that Coggan says 1 hr power is approximately 15% higher than LT.


Why are you so concerned about others training "improperly?" Isn't that good for you if you're racing them?

Read also what I posted by Coggan earlier.


I'm not interested in getting involved in personal arguments but I believe Coggan's, system is flawed.

The fact that people's FTP is different climbing, to on the flat, different on a road bike to a TT bike and indoors to outdoors, on a turbo with low inertia to high inertia, proves it has serious limitations, is misleading and confusing at best.

It all depends really. If a triathlete is using his FTP to gauge intensity on his triathlon bike during the biking leg, then he certainly shouldn't base his training around a road bike position. He needs to train with the device he will be racing. Otherwise, trying to maintain XX% of your threshold (for example in a race), could be way too high if he is basing it on a stronger road bike position, and he would ultimately ride too hard on his triathlon bike and blow up.

Personal arguments? I don't see where anything got personal.

People trained successfully before Coggan's system, and people still train effectively without it. It's a useful tool for some people, less useful for others. If you don't like it, you should definitely check out that Fuzzy Threshold Power thread as people take him to task over the definition of FTP. The problems you see with with the system have also been discussed a lot over there if you're interested in reading about them.

Exactly. There is really no point in using a power meter which is supposed to measure power accurately, and bloody well should given the totally unjustified cost, if you are going to guess and estimate the FTP which is used to estimate Normalised Power and in turn intensity factor and training stress balance.

Why people would spend money to get precise data then base all their training on an estimate of an estimate god only knows.

Mind you if Tim Kerrison and Sky are happy enough to base their training on FTP derived from the data of the left leg and a guess of what the right leg produces you might as well use tarot cards.

For me the answer is easy. Because using the precise data, despite one application relying on an estimated parameter, is still better than any of the other metrics available to me, e.g., time, distance, heart rate.

Have you considered using the data which is fact instead of using the estimated parameter?

Time, distance and heart rate are all real, not estimates. It is illogical to discard fact in favour of a fashionable estimate.

If you use power which is a fact ( if your power meter is accurate) and heart rate in conjunction you are dealing in facts not estimates.

FTFY

I'm used to people mis quoting me. But it is a fact that people's FTP varies depending on temperature, hydration, altitude, position, road bike/TT bike, up hill on the flat, even different positions on TT bike, indoors on turbo to outside, fresh, fatigued, how motivated, etc etc,

FTP is a concept, it looks good on paper but in the real world it is Alison in Wonderland.

Other than simply bashing the concepts of FTP, how to determine/derive FTP, and training based on FTP, do you have a point? You seem to be complaining about a widely accepted way of training without offering any improvements or a better way of doing things.

I've never come across anyone who claims that the current state of power-based training is perfect. Rather many (most ?) people seem to believe it's the best approach that's been come up with to date.

You appear to believe you've identified major flaws with this approach, so do you have suggestions for a better method, or are you just loudly complaining that everything sucks?

Lies, it never gets easier, you are just able to push more watts.

I started training when time was all that was available and learned its limitations well. I then went through the same when distance became available and then again with heart rate. I know accurate power data answers questions I have about my training that the others can't. If you don't find power providing answers you can use, don't use it. If you can think of new ways to use power data toanswer questions that aren't available now, develop them.

[url]

Yes, I do have suggestions for a better method of training with power.
Yes, I have identified the major flaws in Coggan's system.

Cool. Care to share?

I am trying to figure out what you are getting at, not being a smart ass but maybe I am just missing your point.

What are you saying? Do you disagree with FTP? It's just a measure as to what you can do for an hour on a certain day. It will change based on training, weekly load, body weight, indoor vs out door and TT vs seated vs out of saddle climbing. I think most people realize this.

AC's methods/formulas etc are debated widely because through TP and books etc they are applied more widely, this is natural. I don't think he was trying to split the atom for every athlete. Lots of people use power in different ways. AC's stuff is a mathematical formula designed to generally apply.

Just not sure if you are having a go at AC or TP or power meters in general.

Maurice

Drumroll please....

Major flaws?

I'd say you've misrepresented it and way over-amplify the caveats that Dr Coggan already points out in how to apply such principles and ideas.

It is Training Stress Score (TSS ) which I have a problem with because it gives the same points for say 20 min at 250 watts outdoors on a road bike on a cool day as it does for 250 watts on a turbo with inadequate cooling on a TT bike. One is considerably more stressful than the other yet both get the same score.

This is just the effect of training specificity.
I spent a year of training virtually 100% of the time indoors, on my Tri-Bike in the TT position.
Guess what?
My power/HR was higher in Tri-Position than sitting up.
My FTP was 20W higher indoors than out.

---

#######
My Blog

Do you mean you power to heart rate ratio was higher or both power and heart rate were higher? I would argue only the higher power is FTP otherwise you will be training using zones 20 watts out which is too great a percentage error.
Was your heart rate at the new indoor FTP the same as your former outdoor FTP?

I use a combination of maximum sustainable power and maximum sustainable heart rate. Or MSP & MSHR. I find using these two more useful than FTP alone.

I don't disagree, it's just looking at watts. Not sure how it would be made better. You could have a million different scenarios where some one may have a slightly different stress depending on weather, indoors to out doors, TT vs road, climbing in the heat etc.

Maurice

I mean that when I sit up, holding the same power causes HR to increase.
Then when I go back to TT-position, holding the same power causes HR to decrease.


I can't hold the same HR outdoors.

---

#######
My Blog

I estimated my 1 hour power for a couple of years. Recently had a lactate test using a gas exchanger while on my TT bike and using my own power meter. I am pretty confident I know where my actual lactate threshold is and where my 1 hour power is in that situation.

I have also noted that climbing hills outside on my TT bike I can produce more power and I can sustain the effort seemingly above my threshold for very long periods without feeling like I am at threshold. But I have also noted that when going down hill on my TT bike I cannot get anywhere near my threshold power numbers, and if I do I am absolutely pedaling the hell out of my bike. I don't think you have recognized this in your summary. It would be interesting to note if others have also noticed this? It might be easier to produce more power going up hill that it is going on the flat, but in my experience it gets harder to produce power the more downhill you go as well.

I think the point about using threshold is that it is a point where physiological changes occur in the body, and so can be measured and accurately used as a marker with which to set zones. Unless you have a machine of LT test kit at home you cannot accurately work out when this change occurs so the 1 hour power estimates it. So you already have an estimation which you are basing your training zones off. Take into account the effect on power of cycling downhill as well as up hill, and I think you now have enough variability to question outdoor and indoor power measures.

But that is the point isn't it? I test my power indoors because it is repeatable, on the flat and gives me the best feed back I can get without investing in expensive gas analysis equipment, or expensive blood testing. Of course a change in conditions gives a change in results but that is exactly why I like to train indoors, I can control the variability and maintain the correct output. Being able to hit bigger numbers up hill or smaller numbers downhill makes no difference to abilities indoor on the flat - period. I am very confident about my numbers after being tested and while I agree that there is a big variance between indoor and outdoor, I disagree that makes my numbers irrelevant or means the training software is flawed. Quite the opposite in my opinion.

As of Intensity Factor and TSS - I can get a score of more than 100 TSS in less than an hour by hitting some Z5 and Z6 intervals and yes that is against the principle of the software. It is a limitation rather than a flaw, and something that could be developed out - and should be developed out to be honest.

---

He who understands the WHY, will understand the HOW.

I assume your power increased, did your power to heart rate ratio also increase?

Incidentally I know of someone who, after a long break due to injury, spent several months training on a turbo in a new TT position, but surprisingly found their power was substantially higher in the old position even though they had not trained in it for all the months they were training in the new position. It was no small difference, 33 watts. So if he were using Coggan's system he would have had his FTP set 33 watts out and thus all his TSS would also be way out. There was only very minimal difference in his heart rate between the 2 positions.

Not sure I agree with this.

If his FTP was set on a position that allowed him to do 200 watts, then surely his TSS/FTP is based on that position. If the position changed, and it was obvious that there is a distinct power difference, then his FTP should have been retested (resulting in 233) and all TSS accordingly would change.

It seems like you are trying to describe scenarios whereby FTP and TSS do not work, but the underlying scenario is flawed when understood fully.

---

On the internet, you can be anything you want. It is a pity so many people choose to be stupid.

How were you estimating the 1 hour power and how close was the power at lactate threshold to that estimate ?

I don't want to go into detail about the individual but I'm only using it as an example as to how confusion can arise.

For months he might have been doing 2 x 20 at 30 watts below FTP instead of at FTP. He may well have not benefited from those sessions to the extent he should have.

My point is simple, the justification Coggan gives for choosing to base his system on FTP is that it equates closely with blood lactate and other physiological measures. Yet FTP depends on many factors, even a position change can change it, so it causes confusion. Should FTP be set at the highest FTP outdoors, indoors, turbo, rollers, TT position, road bike?

Question, if you train indoors in TT position where your FTP is say 30 watts lower than your outdoor road bike FTP, would you get as good a benefit from 20 minutes at 90% of the lower FTP as you would doing 90% of the higher FTP?

I think Coggan's answer is you should set FTP between the two.

Correlates, not equates.


Generally the highest, and try to "close the gap" for other situations. It depends, however, upon the scenario - for example, if your FTP is reduced due to altitude, you shouldn't calculate TSS using your sea-level performance.


For someone who is so critical, you clearly have a poor understanding of what you're criticizing (vide ante).

Pleased you confirm your justification for using FTP is because it correlates closely to blood lactate threshold and other physiological measures.

You have said here that one should generally set FTP at the highest value which for most would be outdoors on a road bike. But how many people know this? Further, what about people who have only tested their FTP on a TT bike and don't know their road bike FTP? God knows how many people are using your system with their FTP set too high or low.

what is your system trev?

---

---

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

Presumably the same as Warren Geissert's, Kraig/Kirk Willett's, The Old Guy's, and all the others out there who love to criticize but lack the intelligence/insight/knowledge/understanding/background to come up with a better - or indeed, even any cogent alternative - approach. Meanwhile, those at the pointy end of the field (and not just in cycling) keep coming to me for assistance, while the number of imitators/emulators continues to grow...

I use feel, power and heart rate.

That's original - how did you come up with such a novel approach? And how many champions have embraced your unique system?

This system would be subject to the same pitfalls of discrepancy between TT bike and road bike power, or outdoor vs indoor power. Feel and heart rate are both affected by changes like that sometimes as well.

---

---

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

Just because I know Trev would love to see the other thread disappear from the first page:

I feel that the OP had two goals when starting this thread:

Demonstrate to everyone how much he knows about 'the FTP model'.

Draw you out, enter a debate and win.

I'm not sure what the current score is!

---

#######
My Blog

You can add the woman on top of this podium to the montage:



From giving birth to 4w/kg of FTP in 9 months with the PMC guiding the training.

---

---

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

Quoted and highlighted for posterity.

---

"The right to party is a battle we have fought, but we'll surrender and go Amish... NOT!" -Wayne Campbell

Is trev trying to bash Coggan's model because of errors in testing protocol? I dont really know of any people who base there entire training off of one indoor power test. Sure, the indoor test is great for getting you in the right area but i was under the assumption that you need to look at a few races and a few tests to see if you are in the right place.
Like data points on a graph.

I feel that is the second ownage in this thread. Keep them coming.

---

On the internet, you can be anything you want. It is a pity so many people choose to be stupid.

Everyone uses feel."If it feels hard it is hard." Who said that?

Only a complete fool would disregard feel or RPE.

You know, between our wives and Sarah Haskins-Kortuem's burgeoning comeback, there seems to be a trend here...

Me.

Trev is a well-known troll who has been banned from many a fora. I expect that it will only be a matter of time until he outwears his welcome here.

Wrong. A complete fool would disparage the use of estimated (non-factual and non-precision) techniques, then suggest that adherence to the most subjective variable known to mankind (i.e. feeling) is of utmost import.

---

"The right to party is a battle we have fought, but we'll surrender and go Amish... NOT!" -Wayne Campbell

I disparage techniques which claim to be scientific but are not.

Normalised power is a good example, it is merely an estimate of the power one might have produced if the effort were steady state.

The whole point of feel or RPE is that it is subjective.

As usual, you try to avoid answering valid questions and can't accept criticism so make personal attacks. At least on this occasion you have not resorted to abusive language. Do your worst Andrew, try to get me banned.

That something is an estimate does not make it unscientific.

Science is full of estimates.

Estimates are very useful!

---

---

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

Estimates are not as useful as facts. You don't go with the estimate when you have the fact.

Correct!
But, for example, you might have a fact like "miles" or "hours". Now I could be pedantic and point out that you are just estimating those things too, since no measurement tool is perfect. But for sake of argument, let us call those facts.

But we don't want to know how many hours of miles we biked. That doesn't tell us much about training load. As a proxy for training load, "hours" or "miles" and even "heart rate" and "rep" are all *estimates* of training load, or training stress.

So, if you wanted to try to track training stress, or load, for whatever reason. You can't really get away from estimates. At least for now. Perhaps realtime tracking of lactate and other physiological markers might get you there (remembering of course that all measurements are also estimates!)

---

---

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

Trev The Rev wrote:

Estimates are not as useful as facts. You don't go with the estimate when you have the fact.

The Troll Stress Score^TM on this thread is increasing by the post, more so with such short sharp forays into nonsense that goes well beyond one's Functional Trolling Power^TM, that tends to result in a thread with a high Troll Factor^TM.

I'm sorry - is there a question of yours that I overlooked?


You seem to take great offense at being called a troll...a case of "if the shoe fits", eh?


No need - you have repeatedly proven yourself capable of it all by yourself.

Whomever claimed that normalized power is "scientific"?

You should really think about copyrighting that shit. Its really pretty funny. I can see the e-book now. "Trolling and Raging with a Sarcasmeter".

I'm pleased to see you agree normalized power is unscientific.

You certainly dress it up as being scientific.

To quote you
http://home.trainingpeaks.com/...ctor-training-stress
Quote
Normalized Power, Intensity Factor and Training Stress Score
Sunday, August 10, 2008 | By Andy R. Coggan, Ph.D.


Normalized Power (NP)
To account for this variability, TrainingPeaks uses a special algorithm to calculate an adjusted or normalized power for each ride or segment of a ride (longer than 30 seconds) that you analyze. This algorithm is somewhat complicated, but importantly it incorporates two key pieces of information: 1) the physiological responses to rapid changes in exercise intensity are not instantaneous, but follow a predictable time course, and 2) many critical physiological responses (e.g., glycogen utilization, lactate production, stress hormone levels) are curvilinearly, rather than linearly, related to exercise intensity.

By taking these factors into account, normalized power provides a better measure of the true physiological demands of a given training session - in essence, it is an estimate of the power that you could have maintained for the same physiological "cost" if your power output had been perfectly constant (e.g., as on a stationary cycle ergometer), rather than variable. Keeping track of normalized power is therefore a more accurate way of quantifying the actual intensity of training sessions, or even races. For example, it is common for average power to be lower during criteriums than during equally-difficult road races, simply because of the time spent soft-pedaling or coasting through sharp turns during a criterium. Assuming that they are about the same duration, however, the normalized power for both types of events will generally be very similar, reflecting their equivalent intensity. In fact, normalized power during a hard ~1 hour long criterium or road race will often be similar to what a rider can average when pedaling continuously during flat 40k time trial - the normalized power from mass start races can therefore often be used to provide an initial estimate of a rider's threshold power (see below). End quote.

Interesting how you like to use PhD when you are selling things.

Sure, I'll add a chapter to my book, "Things You Wouldn't Read About".

Uh, Trev? I don't work for TrainingPeaks (and never have), don't receive any money for their use of my ideas (except in WKO+, for which I receive a licensing fee of $1/copy), and never sign my name "Andy Coggan, PhD".

Now the fact that I speak/write like a scientist, well, that is on me...

Actually, I don't agree. That is, while it hasn't been published in a peer-reviewed paper, it was invented by an internationally-recognized scientist, is based on scientific knowledge, and has been presented at scientific meetings. It is therefore probably best described as "semi-scientific".

Andrew, Trainingpeaks do here,

Our Trademarks
By introducing scientific tools and methods that have become the industry standard, TrainingPeaks has revolutionized the way that coaches and athletes track, analyze and plan endurance training. Our registered trademarks include TrainingPeaks®, TSS®, Training Stress Score®, IF®, Intensity Factor®, NP®, Normalized Power® and VirtualCoach®.
http://home.trainingpeaks.com/about-us

Normalized Power is clearly sold as a scientific tool or method. So it is most interesting you claim it isn't scientific.

1. Bully for them.

2, Interesting in what way?

...which, if you think about it, makes it closer to being "scientific" than, say, the methods of Jack Daniels, Fritz Hagerman, Doc Councilman, Peter Coe, etc. Not that that is necessarily a good thing, however!

For someone who expects such a high degree of rigor from other, you certainly don't apply it to yourself. In the quoted text, TP claims some of their tools and methods are scientific. They then list a number of registered trademarks. At no time do they associate these trademarks with tools or methods much less those that they consider scientific. To say (based on the text) that TP is identified as scientific is fantasy.

The former . . .

Yes my radar is a bit off, I couldn't tell honestly at the start.

TSS and other TP stuff are just a few of many tools available to athletes, nobody is putting a gun to anyones head. I think you also see people adapting and using TSS in ways that maybe weren't originally intended, but useful to some. IE some are using TSS as a year over year metric during certain phases. If people want to use it then great, if they don't or use some sort of hybrid model that works for them then great.

Who cares? I think it's normal to assume that for a given power you will have different levels of stress, for different external conditions…. and should govern yourself accordingly.

Maurice

If you want to measure training load/stress, you have options, in approximately decreasing order of estimation of reality:

hours - the data is a hard fact but doesn't reflect training load well. A 4 hour road race would be the same as a 4 hour cruise smelling the flowers. Obviously insane

miles - the data is a hard fact and has built in some notion of how hard you were going, but still doesn't reflect training load well. A windy ride for an hour would look like less training load than a windless day for an hour, when the opposite would be true. Group ride would get more miles simply because of drafting. Moving to a place with smoother roads, all your mielage stats go up even if you didn't actually work any harder.

kilojoules - the data is a hard fact about how much energy you spent, so this is *really* good. But it still doesn't account for the fact that say, alternating 100 and 300 watt intervals is a lot harder than just averaging 200 watts. So, it is still an estimation of reality.

TSS or BikeScore - takes into account that the stress at a given power is nonlinear. Not going to be perfect, but then neither are any of the above methods. It shouldn't ever be more misleading than kilojoules is. Even a "NP buster" workout where NP ends up way above what you can do for a 40k will be less misleading than kilojoules about how 'hard' the ride was.

I'm not a coaching expert, I know people who are, that think TSS is stupid. They mostly express that on twitter with sarcastic comments that are too short to reveal good reasons why. They may have them good reasons though. I imagine ultimately that they just reject the notion of trying to quantify training load/stress in the first place, and prefer to approach it qualitatively. Given that nobody knows what the perfect pattern of training is anyway, a smart person approaching it qualitatively may indeed be no worse than trying to track it quantitatively.

I'm just rambling here sorry.

---

---

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

Have you considered kilojoules or watts and heart rate. Heart rate is used successfully to track training in other sports and it even automatically increases and hangs and stays higher after very hard efforts. In fact you could say it normalises.

So you have a measure of performance in watts and heart rate which is simple to measure and record and reliably tracks how hard your body is working to produce the power.

Over the past 30 years my maximum heart rate has dropped a few beats, but rowing, running or cycling my maximum sustainable heart rate has remained stable but power output has been very variable depending on fitness.

Using heart rate to track training stress is simple and you don't need to keep resetting FTP.

Heart rate is pretty good, I might rank it 2nd best. It might even be plain best, but it too is subject to noise and variation from heat, cold, caffeine, bike position, stress, etc.

heart rate is a physiological indicator but not the absolute truth about how hard your body is working either. You can sometimes even get more fit yet heart rate goes up at a given power.

As for resetting FTP, that hasn't ever been a big deal for me. I don't even need to test for it. It clearly arises out of race and group ride and training data. And neither I more my wife have any crazy FTP difference on road vs tt bike.

---

---

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

as long as most of the energy contribution is aerobic, than yeah, it's probably a good one.

but as we all know, cycling, especially road racing and track racing, taps into anaerobic and neuromuscular energy sources as well, and HR does a horrendous job of accounting for those

I agree it is possible to get fitter yet find heart rate at a given power has decreased but this normally only happens over short durations where the anaerobic contribution is great. I have not seen it over longer durations of say over 15 minutes. You can only get your sustainable heart rate so close to your maximum heart rate, sooner or later you are going to run out of heart rate, and then the only way to increase power is to improve power:heart rate ratio.

This is why I use power and heart rate in conjunction.

It might do ok if you kept recording AFTER the ride until you return to baseline =)

---

---

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

Even without the longer term issues, heart rate is not an absolute indicator of how hard someone's working. I've mentioned before that shortly after getting a power meter I did a climb two ways. First, I climbed a mile at a constant heart rate at steady effort around what would now be called FTP (the concept didn't exist at the time). Power was pretty much steady for the effort. I then climbed the next mile at the same heart rate but varying power first below then above the average for the first effort so that heart rate remained constant (I'd ridden enough by heart rate that I had a good sense of how hard or easy I could go before heart rate changed). The average power for that second effort was well below the first. That told me that there isn't a one-to-one correspondence between effort and heart rate even under identical conditions.

If you ride at a constant power at the start your heart rate will be low and gradually increase then level off, then in time it will increase a little more as you fatigue and or get hotter. So it isn't surprising your power was down on the 2nd effort for the same sort of heart rate.

Try doing 2 x 20 min at threshold. You will find average heart rate will be higher for the 2nd effort.

Have you considered just focussing on improving your performance, and letting your physiology take care of itself? It seems to have worked rather well for these people:

Not to mention all the other useful things you can learn from using a powermeter.

So this whole thread boils down to the fact that you don't like TSS? Okay. Good to know. So use something else and stop complaining. Plenty of people have been successful using TSS and what you believe are inaccurate assessments of 1-hour thresholds.

The best part about this whole thread is that after all your complaints, you still haven't provided a valid alternative to the systems you are complaining about.

Except this was two miles (8 minutes) in the middle of a ride. I wouldn't expect significant cardiac drift in such a short time. But be that as it may, you seem to be making the case against heart rate if it isn't a reliable measure of effort even over the course of less than ten minutes.

Heart Rate is a valid alternative. Using power but not using NP and TSS is valid. I use both power and heart rate with Feel or RPE.

No I don't like NP or TSS, I'm entitled to that opinion and to express it.

Which will be an estimate, and since you aren't quantifying it, and can't, it is an estimate subject to all the usual errors of human perception.

---

---

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

The watts are not estimated, the heart rate is not estimated. Feel is subjective.

The whole idea you can describe training load based on one number, TSS, is plain daft.

As andrew himself has said,
"" A greater limitation to the entire concept, though, is that the
basic premise – i.e., that you can adequately describe the training load
and the stress it imposes on an individual based on just one number
(TSS), completely ignoring how that “score” is achieved and other
factors (e.g., diet, rest) – is, on its face, ridiculous. In particular,
it must be recognized that just because, e.g., two different training
programs produce the same weekly TSS total, doesn’t mean that an
individual will respond in exactly the same way. Nonetheless, I believe
that TSS (and IF) should prove useful to coaches and athletes for
evaluating/managing training.""
http://lists.topica.com/...ort=d&start=9353

What you get with Andrew's system is garbage in gospel out.

The relationship between heart rate and power output during cycling competitions
2006-07-11
Ericsson, Fredrik, Dalarna University and Björklund, Glenn, Mid Sweden University

Conclusion
Our results suggest that the drift in the relationship between heart rate and power output, CV drift, is not as pronounced during cycling competitions as in the laboratory. The reasons for the difference in our results compared to those from the laboratory are not clear but the airflow around the cyclist during outdoor riding is a very likely factor.

If there are sub-optimal calibrations of the power meters this would most likely result in a overall too high or too low power output recording. Since we are foremost interested in the relationship between heart rate and power output and the within session drift in the power values, even if they were very off from the beginning, is most likely non significant.

We found no significant changes during the first 120 minutes of road race competition or during 35 minute long time trials. After 120 minutes we have observed an upward drift of the heart rate in relation to power output in the range of 5 beats, in competitions lasting 240 minutes. CV drift can be a result of many different mechanisms and it is impossible to draw any conclusions to which mechanisms that have induced the drift we observed.

Most (older) versions of the SRM™ system collect the heart rate data from un-coded chest straps. It is therefore possible, that when riding in a peloton, the meter can pick up heart rates from other chest straps than the one on the cyclists producing the power output. This could theoretically mean that the power output and heart rate data come from different riders at times during the race. This is luckily not very likely during individual time trials.

We conclude that during competitions of <120 minutes heart rate is a valid and reliable predictor of exercise intensity and energy expenditure. For competitions of <240 minutes heart rate will increase by <5 beats/min relative to workload and therefore over predict exercise workload and energy expenditure.

Oh, Oh, let me, let me, please?

"You're entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts."

Even before Dr. Coggan stepped in to clarify some of these points, it was apparent to any reader that you were on a crusade of some kind, dogmatically opposed to TSS/FTP among other things, attempting to appear smart, and attempting to start a fight.

Nothing you have said is new in any way. Nothing you have said clarifies or is helpful, and none of it is not already common knowledge. It's obvious, as was pointed out to you, that FTP is just an estimate, it's obvious that HR is important, and it's obvious to anybody who applies these training principles if your FTP is set wrong (e.g. 2x20 feeling "easy").

But by all means, please continue to post, it's amusing at least. Certainly not productive, though-- sorry to burst your over-inflated bubble.

-Eric

Right so basically you imagine some athlete who only looks at TSS, and plans their training only with that, and imagine how that couls be stupid. But nobody does that. Anyone who does do that would be just as incompetent at combining heart rate, kilojoules, and "feel" in their head to drive their training.

It is like when Kraig Willet goes on about "the gold being in the files". Yes Kraig, I am also looking at the files.

---

---

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

That was prescient of me, wasn't it?

Some people apparently can't imagine being able to walk and chew gum at the same time.

Nothing new there.

Not unreasonable points, for the record I don't use TSS or TP.

I don't care who does or who doesn't, ultimately it's about extracting performance from where you are to where you want to end on race day. There are some really good threads on here about how an athlete may use TSS in certain phases to influence an outcome year over year. So if for example they decide to increase intensity and volume in programming and they look at TSS as a week over week indicator and they find an individual correlation then I think that's great.

If they don't find a correlation then that could lead to other avenues of exploration, thats great too, if it leads to a direct negative correlation then thats great too. I don't care, it's up to people to find their own way to what they want to achieve.

In terms of the points above, yes I would say that load is different for a given workout. whether it applies directly to the formula is up for debate on an individual basis. How NP correlates to the individual response to training or directly to BL response…..is well individual. I think if people wanted to they could use this in conjunction with other metrics and individually tailer input vs outcome success etc…It's up to them not me which is why I don't care a whole bunch about TSS and what people do with it. But like I said before it is up to the individual, and there are post's in which people use it to their advantage.

I guess I am agnostic on TSS, if it works great, if it doesn't grab a pad of paper and a pen and write down notes as to why. Or maybe use excel and start adding certain values on your own for indoor vs outdoor etc.

If you clearly hate it then don't use it, even if there is just a 10% value metric in TSS if you are pre-disposed to hating its author or the methodology then you won't see that 10%.

I guess maybe we look at different things, using our own correlations or evaluations. PM usage is about 30% so maybe 4-5 out of 15 athletes, so to start TSS really doesn't work for 2/3rds or so. It also may have issues in running/swimming but I think this has been discussed before.

Maurice

We've been waiting but all I can hear is the sound of tumbleweeds rolling down a lonely desert highway. Perhaps a few crickets in the evenings.

When you estimate based on two measured units and one subjective unit the result will always be subjective.
If there was an SI unit for subjectivity - once you put that unit in the equation it's automatically in the result.

Do you really think this is a stronger argument than NP (Which as you wrongly state is not "...merely an estimate of the power one might have produced if the effort were steady state").

If you are going to be the aggressor in the debate (which I believe was your mission from the start) then you'll have to give facts.

You are trying to blow every argument out of the water by disputing it's scientific merit but can't give any scientific merit for your own arguments.

I'm enjoying the argument but can't help but feel that you are not interested in debate, just mud slinging like a stubborn child.

---

#######
My Blog

My system is based upon maximum average power and sustainable heart rate derived from a 20 minute test.

Power is average power over the 20 minutes. Sustainable heart rate is derived only from minutes 10 to 17 in the test. A ten minute structured warm up is required.

No numbers for feel or RPE are used other than as notes, no score is given.

Training is scored using both power and heart rate. I also look at power / heart rate ratio.

There is a heart rate score and a power score and a combined score.
It is pretty obvious when you should re set your 20 minute power number.

I'm not prepared to go into more detail. Particularly after reading some of the comments posted above.

Through this whole all I have seen is somebody who is being rude and disrespectful for his own purposes. Now I read your 'system', all I can say is that you are an arse.

---

He who understands the WHY, will understand the HOW.

Why only minutes 10-17?
How do I calculate my hour power?
How do I use this to monitor my training on a 4 hour ride.

These are only questions from me, those with more knowledge and experience will no doubt have more, and better questions.

In all honesty, until such point as you are prepared to go into detail and even go so far as write a paper and get it peer reviewed, you are just making yourself look even more a little more silly than you already do.

---

On the internet, you can be anything you want. It is a pity so many people choose to be stupid.

What, for fear of being trolled on the interwebs?
How ironic.

Yet another internet forum turns on Trev

 


Hi Andy, it’s been a few years eh? I have a couple of questions for you, since you brought me into this:

Why are you smearing, mischaracterizing, and misrepresenting me on this forum?

What measures of intelligence/insight/knowledge/understanding/background do you use to judge folks as being capable of managing performance differently than your approach?

I believe there are many different approaches and many different paths to the same goal, and I apologize if you didn’t/don’t understand mine.

Functional Threshold Power, Normalized Power, Training Stress Score have never been presented in a peer reviewed paper.

There is no evidence whatever that Andrew Coggan's ideas, as laid out in Training and Racing with a Power Meter work any better than just counting heart beats and watts.

Due to the difficulties in establishing FTP which varies with temperature, TT Bike / Road Bike, turbo / outdoors, etc etc and the way TSS scores eg 300 watts on a turbo in excessive heat in TT set up when fatigued as it does outdoors on a road bike when totally fresh, which is ludicrous, it is probably far better to track training stress by heart rate and use power in watts as a measure of performance.

Coggan also does a disservice to an entire generation of cyclists by continually disparaging anyone who advocates using power with heart rate.

There is no evidence his methods work better than merely quantifying training by adding up all the heart beats and all the watts and keeping a close eye on the trend of power : heart rate ratio, and or following advice about using power with heart rate from Joe Freil and others.

TSS has been criticised by many, Coggan always reverts to the same defence, which is to attack the person then boast about his track record.

It is no argument to call people who criticise some your ideas names.

Coggan and his followers can call me all the names they like, but they will fail to bully me off this or any other forum.

The fact he resorts to name calling exposes his inability to answer valid criticisms.

Power is for measuring performance, heart rate is a simple and reliable way to measure and quantify training stress. It has many advantages, it increases for a given power as you fatigue and get hotter. It increases and hangs to reflect hard efforts, in fact it automatically normalizes.

There is not a shred of evidence Coggan's system works any better than using heart rate, or simply adding up the watts or both, or in fact just adding up the miles, hours or even pedal strokes.

Coggan is fond of boasting about his scientific background and the papers he has written, note how he has consistently failed to present a paper on FTP, Normalized Power and TSS.

I don't believe that I am smearing, mischaracterizing, or misrepresenting you in the least. You have been highly critical of the approaches I have developed (which many, including those at the very pinnacle of the sport, consider quite useful), but have routinely failed to offer any alternative of your own (aside from vague comments about "the gold is in the files", as if - as Jack Mott points out - using newer tools to obtain an overview somehow prevents one from also examining individual data files in detail).

If you've since come up with something better than that, well, now is the time to share...

I am going to ask that you please stop smearing, mischaracterizing, and misrepresenting me on this forum and elsewhere, Andy.

Uh, you're wrong there (just not by me).


Calling you a troll is simply stating facts. After all, if I were the only one who held that opinion, you wouldn't have been banned from so many forums.


You're dreaming: I rarely mention my professional endeavors.


Actually, I presented my ideas as an invited speaker at a symposium at ACSM a number of years ago. I don't get paid to do applied sport science research, though, so it is up to somebody else to do a formal study (as Lindsay Edwards and Simon Jobson started on about 10 y ago...too bad they never finished it, since the results were quite supportive).

I am not smearing, mischaracterizing, or misrepresenting you here or, for that matter, anywhere else. I am simply stating facts, i.e., you have been highly critical of my ideas, but have never offered any alternative other than "the gold is in the files".

Please stop continuing to do this, Andy.

So which part are you disputing: that you have been highly critical of my ideas, or that you haven't offered any alternative other than focusing on individual files?

It's not either/or. I am asking you, politely, to stop personally smearing, mischaracterizing, and misrepresenting me. WRT your quote above, yes, I have been critical, particularly regarding the exploration of meanings, error margins and magnitudes. I have discussed a different approach and potential changes. If you didn't appreciate them, understand me, or agree with them; that's fine, I apologize.

As usual Coggan tries to smother the argument by making personal attacks.

He has no evidence using power alone is any more effective than using heart rate to measure training stress.

Heart rate has advantages, particularly to those who do more than just do all their training on a bicycle. You can use heart rate across sports, running, swimming, rowing, cycling, and heart rate takes account of the added stresses of heat, awkward positions, etc etc.

The man should stop disparaging the use of heart rate on its own or in conjunction with power.

Coggan should produce scientific evidence which proves his methods are superior to using heart rate alone or using heart rate in conjunction with power.


Heart rate has another advantage, it soon tells you when your power meter need re calibrating or fixing.


Power in watts is a measure of performance, a measure of output, nothing more. Heart rate is a measure of the bodies response to power output.

If that's the case why don't you just use RPE? After all that's a measure of both the body AND minds response to power output. Hell of a lot simpler and cheaper.

So the best he can come up with is that 10 years ago a formal study was started but never finished.

We will have to take his word the unpublished results were supportive.

Okay, one down.

Kirk_Willett wrote:

I have discussed a different approach and potential changes. If you didn't appreciate them, understandfo me, or agree with them; that's fine, I apologize

Sorry, I must have missed where you suggested an approach for analyzing powermeter data other than looking closely at individual files. Can you point me to it?

Hey, don't blame me because others are apparently unwilling/unable to pick up the ball and run with it. Goodness knows I've put plenty of ideas out there for people to test, which is pretty much all I'm able to do.


Actually, you don't have to take my word for it, as the results have been shared in various locations, e.g., on the wattage list, on the TRWPM blog, etc. If you can't keep up/are late to the game, well, there's not a lot I can do about that.

http://www.trainingandracingwithapowermeter.com/...ional-threshold.html

There are no results, they never finished the paper. You are talking about things posted on blogs and forums not independent scientific evaluations.

No power-based metrics have been validated in peer-reviewed scientific studies.

What exactly are you trying to accomplish here besides getting in a pissing match with AC? If you are trying to change the hearts and minds of the people here, I'd wager you are going about it the wrong way.

---

---

Heath Dotson
HD Coaching:Website |Twitter: 140 Characters or Less|Facebook:Follow us on Facebook

There isn't even any evidence training with power is more effective than training with heart rate.

When a study is done heart rate proves as effective if not more.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19204572

http://www.toppfysik.nu/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/The-relationship-between-heart-rate-and-power-output-during-road-cycling-competitions.pdf


But it is not a case of power v heart rate. I believe they should be used together, they measure different things. Both are useful, combine the two and they are more useful.


http://www.cycleops.com/en/training/training-resources/203-heart-rates-role-in-training-with-power.html
"""The real issue though is not if power and heart rate correlate perfectly with one another, it's that power and heart rate are measuring two fundamentally different things. Power is a measure of your actual dose. Heart rate is a measure of your response. Not only are they distinct, they are both a critical aspect of a basic training paradigm. That is, power measures the heat while heart rate tells you how fast the kernels are burning. Add time, and you get the total energy that goes into a system (power x time) as well as the total number of kernels popped (heart rate x time). So the inherent value of measuring both power and heart rate is that you can track the fundamental relationship between your training dose or load and your response or adaptation. You can see, chronically or acutely, if you are getting better or worse. In many ways, the process of training and adaptation isn't too different from a growing tree blowing in the wind. Initially, the young tree bends quite a bit to a gust of wind, but as it grows and gets stronger, the same wind barely causes any flex in that tree's trunk. In this scenario, power is that gust of wind and heart rate is how much that tree bends. In theory, as we get stronger over time, we should be able to produce more power at a given heart rate. Likewise, within a ride, as we fatigue, dehydrate, or over heat, our heart rate drifts high at any given power output. Understanding the relationship between the two and being aware of the factors that can affect both are important to optimizing one's training. """


Coggan claims heart rate is redundant and misleading at best. A lot of people don't agree with him.

That is correct, I just thought somebody might be interested in seeing the results that were obtained.


That depends on what you mean by "power-based metrics" and "validated". What can be said is that my ideas have been cited in ~20 papers, even though my goal has been to share them w/ coaches and athletes, not my scientific peers.

And the one you choose to quote (though without acknowledging) is Allen Lim? Now there's a guy whose word on training you can take to the bank.

And a lot of people do. <shrug> However, unlike, say, an entertainer, politician, or, even to some extent, a professional athlete, I don't concern myself with how many people agree or disagree (or like/dislike) me. Instead, my positions are based on my own weighing of available data and evidence, rather than an appeal to authority.

Oh, and BTW, the saying is "Heart rate is at best redundant but at worst misleading."

Why not? By all reports, Lim certainly did. ;)

As heart rate is misleading please can you explain why, when FTP improves, power:heart rate ratio invariably improves.

For myself, after an hour on the bike my hr drops to under my zone 2 hr and stays there. I can raise it for a short time with a hard effort, but for the most part it doesn't move much once it drops even though I maintain the same watts.

At worst misleading, and what you claim isn't true (just ask any triathlete who has observed their sustainable - and sometimes even peak - heart rate to rise when they significantly increased the amount of cycling they did).

Actually Andrew, perhaps we can discuss this most interesting point in some detail.

Would you say that their power:heart rate ratio would not have also improved?

There is a limit to how close one can get their sustainable power to their maximum heart rate. Sooner or later it is no longer possible to increase your sustainable heart rate because you can't increase your maximum heart rate.


When someone is a strong runner with a well developed cardiovascular system they might not, at first, have the muscular adaptation to cycle anywhere near their running sustainable heart rate or push their cycling maximum heart rate anywhere near their running heart rate.

So your triathlete example may be able to increase his cycling sustainable heart rate but there is limited scope to do this and his power:heart rate ratio will improve as his cycling muscles become better adapted to cycling.

From my own experience when I took up cycling, my muscles were poorly adapted to cycling, but I was fit from running, squash and rowing. My legs were unable to produce enough watts to push my heart rate up near my running or rowing sustainable maximum heart rate. But it only took a few weeks before my cycling sustainable heart rate was the same as both my running and rowing heart rate.

A triathlete who is a very fit runner and swimmer who has done very little cycling in comparison may well be able to increase their sustainable heart rate, but sooner or later they will reach a point where the only way to improve FTP is to improve power:heart rate ratio. Furthermore, any improvement in sustainable heart rate will go hand in hand with am improvement in power:heart rate ratio as their muscles adapt more to cycling and become more efficient.

In my case my maximum heart rate is 172 bpm, my sustainable heart rate is 163 bpm, I really can't sustain higher than that, and my maximum certainly isn't going to increase so how can I improve my FTP without increasing my power:heart rate ratio?

Trev,

If I do a 3 X 20 workout at an IF of .92 before eating breakfast my average heart rate will be ~5BPM lower than if I do the exact same workout after breakfast even with a 2 hour interval between breakfast and the workout. In your rating system would you contend that I'm getting a much better workout when I do it after a breakfast because my heart rate is higher?

Hugh

---

Genetics load the gun, lifestyle pulls the trigger.

In that instance the heart rate number would show a higher training stress but the power number would not.

Likewise if you did the same session in very hot conditions which caused the heart rate to be even higher for the same wattage the power number would be the same but the heart rate number would be higher.

The reason I look at power and heart rate together is because depending on the situation one alone in isolation can be misleading.

If you are looking at power:heart rate ratio it is important to compare like for like. Time of day, temperature etc. you would expect variation.

Do you always find a 5 beat difference pre breakfast and afterwards?
Does the 5 beat difference remain the same over the whole session or does your heart rate start higher and is the heart rate higher at the end?

How do the sessions feel, would the after breakfast 5 beats higher feel harder or easier?

If you did a 20 min max power test after breakfast do you think the average heart rate would still be 5 beats higher after breakfast?


Would your sustainable heart rate in a max test also be 5 beats higher after breakfast?

Now that I'm in 60s I'm not very excited about hammering max heart rate efforts except in competition so I can't speak to that situation.

While I've enjoyed being distracted by heart rate over the winter....seeing how room temperature, fan setting, position on the bike and timing of meals have influenced it I don't see that it has changed how I've trained at all. I've worked at specific wattages rather than specific heart rates and will continue to do so.

Hugh

---

Genetics load the gun, lifestyle pulls the trigger.

Hugh. I train entirely by feel, I don't need a power meter or heart rate but I enjoy looking at both and recording the information.

Sometimes I do get bored with one or the other or both. Sometimes I find them an annoying distraction, sometimes they make training more interesting, particularly now I do almost all my training indoors.

If I had to choose between power and heart rate I would choose power.

But I really don't see why anyone would want to ignore heart rate.

Yes I do train entirely by feel. I train by feel if I'm using power, heart rate or both.

Everyone always trains with feel.

You don't need power or heart rate to train effectively.

Some like to use power and feel, some like to use heart rate and feel, some like to use all three and some like to use feel without power or heart rate. Soon we will also have a device which measures blood lactate as well. Interesting to see what Coggan's thoughts might be on that.

+1 this

He's been quite clear about his feelings with regard to training with blood lactate data in posts to the Wattage list and elsewhere; but knowing how he feels about other isolated measures of strain, it shouldn't be hard to guess.