Login required to started new threads

Login required to post replies

Prev Next
By using power, do we ignore HR too much?
Quote | Reply
This quandary came about by analyzing my numbers after Challenge copenhagen

SRM ride time 4.58
AP 225, NP 245
TSS 265
Ave HR 138

If its any help, I did 3.19 on the run which was a pb by 7 mins (but I did slightly more long runs this yr)

Now I think the power numbers are where I would have expected them based on some training rides I did in the last month, but my HR was in the low to mid 140s for those rides

Could it be that a proper taper (as opposed to riding and running day after day) gives you 'x' extra watts and we actually underestimate what we can do when 'fresh'
Thus to be accurate, should we do a few long rides with a mini taper to get a true reflection of what our 'fresh' numbers would be?

And ultimately could it be that my expensive SRM actually acted as a (self imposed) limiter for me as I was scared to go above 230 ave watts, whereas if I had just used a HRM I would have kept it at 140-145 and maybe gone 5-10 mins quicker?
Looking at TSS - was under the impression 280-300 was the target


Or am I over-analyzing this !!!
Quote Reply
Re: By using power, do we ignore HR too much? [bespoke] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
A bit of a digression:
What to you ride?
What is the course like?
How much do you weigh?

That is a wicked ride for that power.


I think that when you are well rested - you simply get a little boost from being fresh. You can ride a touch harder at a given cost. or you an ride the same at a lower cost. I'm sure others will chime in with more detailed, supported, and passionate opinions, but that is mine.
Quote Reply
Re: By using power, do we ignore HR too much? [bespoke] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
We don't ignore heart rate enough.
Quote Reply
Re: By using power, do we ignore HR too much? [bespoke] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
No, not really. A multitude of facts might be responsible for the difference between training HR and racing HR.

-

The Triathlon Squad

Like us on Facebook!!!
Quote Reply
Re: By using power, do we ignore HR too much? [bespoke] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
By using power, do we ignore HR too much?

probably not. The real question is what would you have done differently if you choose to pay more attention to HR?

The bigger question is what do you think the outcome results would have been at the finish line should you have chosen to do something differently?

Brian Stover USAT LII
Accelerate3 Coaching
Insta

Quote Reply
Re: By using power, do we ignore HR too much? [bespoke] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Using target avg power or TSS requires an accurate FTP to be meaningful. Your FTP should be tested when you are fresh so unless it changes in the last month or so it should provide a reliable basis for target effort. I think it's easier to 'tune' your targets based on FTP than HR which is subject to too many variables.

If you had gone harder on the bike and shaved 10min what impact would that have had on your run?
Quote Reply
Re: By using power, do we ignore HR too much? [bespoke] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
This is really interesting and something I've thought about on long rides.

In my opinion (which is neither fact or experience based), it seems logical that HR would be a better indicator of your present day threshold. Knowing your avg watts is helpful for training purposes so you're able to incrementally increase the avg. But as we all know, our bodies are different everyday which can be a result of dozens of factors including recovery, general health, nutrition, hydration, altitude and climate to name a few.

On race day your HR should tell you more than your avg power. In your race (which was very impressive) it seems like the SRM may have limited your potential. It might be an interesting experiment to race with power and HR but only track HR and ignore power, then review the outcome.
Quote Reply
Re: By using power, do we ignore HR too much? [r.cal] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
On race day your HR should tell you more than your avg power.

HR is a downstream measurement of the watts you are producing. Watts is what you are producing.

why would you weigh more heavily something that is an indicator of what you are doing when you have something that is telling you what you are doing?

Brian Stover USAT LII
Accelerate3 Coaching
Insta

Quote Reply
Re: By using power, do we ignore HR too much? [bespoke] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Hr is is always higher during a race than training, or so I have been told here.

--------------
Frank,
An original Ironman and the Inventor of PowerCranks
Quote Reply
Re: By using power, do we ignore HR too much? [desert dude] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
You're right, it is a downstream measure - but we're talking about subjective performance using objective metrics. Here's an example, I was training for the Chicago marathon years ago and intended to run 6:30 splits. All my long runs leading up to the race, including a qualifier at the Bronx Half were <6:30 splits.

Based on this training, there's no reason why I wouldn't be able to reproduce that effort at the marathon. Whether it was jet lag/sleep or whatever, on race day I went out at my target pace but noticed lactic acid build up at mile 6 and my heart rate was climbing above my avg of 165. I kept pushing my pace thinking my body would respond but it didn't and I fell off when my muscles were atrophying and my HR was near max. The rest of the race was miserable and to this day I don't know what happened, but I do know past performance was not necessarily an indicator of future results... my 401k provider will support this theory.
Quote Reply
Re: By using power, do we ignore HR too much? [r.cal] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
The outcome of this particular tangent of discussion interests me greatly.


Why can one for weeks on end ride 5+ hours @ X watts, but on race day fold @ x-10%.
Quote Reply
Re: By using power, do we ignore HR too much? [sentania] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
doubt it, IM power is somewhere between 70-75% of an age groupers FTP. the only reason why they cant hold it for 5 hours with proper training is b/c of an improper taper, or really hot and humid conditions.
Quote Reply
Re: By using power, do we ignore HR too much? [r.cal] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Since it's nearly impossible to measure power output while running, that is a bad example.

One common flaw I have noticed over the years is many people target a certain pace for their marathon. None of their training is specific to starting their race at in your case 6:30/mile. Most people roll through their first few miles in training slower then gradually run faster over time. Most people tend not to do this when they get to their actual event.

If you want to move this from riding to running specific we can, but I'd suggest starting a new thread.

fwiw, i can pull power files of about 50-60 HIM's where multiple people hit their power targets and had really good runs.

I can pull 10 files where people ignored their PM and had ok to bad runs.

Hr's for many of these files are similar, even at above target watts, to what they had in training.

Brian Stover USAT LII
Accelerate3 Coaching
Insta

Last edited by: desert dude: Aug 31, 10 8:23
Quote Reply
Re: By using power, do we ignore HR too much? [SeasonsChange] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
probably a new thread - but what consistutes an improper taper?


Simply not enough rest? To much intensity? To little intensity?
Quote Reply
Re: By using power, do we ignore HR too much? [Frank Day] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
if i remember correctly isn't it supposed to be 20 beats higher :)

Ride Scoozy Electric Bicycles
http://www.RideScoozy.com
Quote Reply
Re: By using power, do we ignore HR too much? [sentania] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
but what consistutes an improper taper? Simply not enough rest?


Typically people do too much, too fast, to close to the event.

Brian Stover USAT LII
Accelerate3 Coaching
Insta

Quote Reply
Re: By using power, do we ignore HR too much? [desert dude] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Brian Stover:

Quote:
HR is a downstream measurement of the watts you are producing. Watts is what you are producing.

why would you weigh more heavily something that is an indicator of what you are doing when you have something that is telling you what you are doing?

Paulo Sousa:
Quote:
No, not really. A multitude of facts might be responsible for the difference between training HR and racing HR.

But really, Paulo's leaving out even more: we know very well that a multitude of facts might be responsible for the difference between yesterday's HR and today's.

So, to combine all of this, you might weigh it more heavily because it might indicate something important, something that isn't actually reflected in the power level. Whether you think it might not mean anything important depends on what you believe the factors are that alter HR on a given day for a given power output.

Personally, for 70.3 or above, I would tend to pay attention to my HR if it was too high (more than 3 or 4 beats from where it was during representative training) or if it was unusually low (say, more than 5% or so). If its in that range, I'd stick with power as a more likely indicator of what's appropriate for the day. But you're a much more studly racer than me, so I'm not sure if that's useful information.





Quote Reply
Re: By using power, do we ignore HR too much? [msuguy512] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
if i remember correctly isn't it supposed to be 20 beats higher :)
Yes, I remember that too. And, I remember this phenomenon being so common that it isn't even worthy of studying. It is just something everyone knows and accepts.

--------------
Frank,
An original Ironman and the Inventor of PowerCranks
Quote Reply
Re: By using power, do we ignore HR too much? [desert dude] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
That's fair; running isn't the best example - it's just the only one I thought of. And, btw, you're right about negative splitting a marathon which was part of the issue that day. I digress, we can stick to cycling...

So again, I don't have the statistical data to support my hypothesis. I was trying to make the point that on race day many factors will cause an athlete to perform differently than they train, therefore, how can avg power be an accurate indicator of your perceived effort on that day? I don't think the OP's question has been answered; if he hit his target PM but his HR was low, did he leave something on the course?
Quote Reply
Re: By using power, do we ignore HR too much? [dawhead] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
since it is so variable, why would you want to weigh it most heavily?

Think about it this way in order of most important to least:

watts -> perceived exertion (is my effort reasonable and similar to when I train at these wattages?) -> HR.

Brian Stover USAT LII
Accelerate3 Coaching
Insta

Quote Reply
Re: By using power, do we ignore HR too much? [r.cal] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
don't think the OP's question has been answered; if he hit his target PM but his HR was low, did he leave something on the course?

Maybe, but if he controlled his race, and didn't race stupid then odds are he had the best race. He might have left 2-3min on the table or he might have spent an extra 20 min on the run if he rode dumb. Ain't no fixing stupid in a race after you've realized you were stupid.

How can average power not be an indicator of how you raced? it's what you put out. (granted there are different ways to get an average for a ride but assume that one has ridden smart in the IM bike segment). Again why would you use a measurement as the primary tool to measure the response to what you are doing when you have a computer on your bike telling you exactly what you are doing?

Brian Stover USAT LII
Accelerate3 Coaching
Insta

Quote Reply
Re: By using power, do we ignore HR too much? [desert dude] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
since it is so variable, why would you want to weigh it most heavily?

Think about it this way in order of most important to least:

watts -> perceived exertion (is my effort reasonable and similar to when I train at these wattages?) -> HR.

Exactly...and didn't r.cal state that it was his PE that he first noticed being out of whack with his target running pace?

I don't even use HR at all any more. As cycling coach Charles Howe likes to say: "Power calibrates PE, PE modulates power"...or something like that...

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/
Quote Reply
Re: By using power, do we ignore HR too much? [desert dude] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
since it is so variable, why would you want to weigh it most heavily?

Think about it this way in order of most important to least:

watts -> perceived exertion (is my effort reasonable and similar to when I train at these wattages?) -> HR.
Do you have some evidence to support that being the correct order of most important to least important?

In very experienced athletes I would argue that perceived exertion as being the most important with power and HR used as secondary checks.

--------------
Frank,
An original Ironman and the Inventor of PowerCranks
Quote Reply
Re: By using power, do we ignore HR too much? [desert dude] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
In Reply To:
but what consistutes an improper taper? Simply not enough rest?



Typically people do too much, too fast, to close to the event.

It's also possible to rest too much...don't ask me how I'm acutely aware of that :-/

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/
Quote Reply
Re: By using power, do we ignore HR too much? [desert dude] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
since it is so variable, why would you want to weigh it most heavily?

i wouldn't weight it most heavily. i'd ignore it entirely unless its outside of a range that indicated either that i'm being stupid (you know, those days or hours when you feel like superman and an HR that'ts 20% higher than normal seems doable ... until its not), or that i'm probably sick on some level. that said, i stopped wearing a HR meter years ago so i'm unlikely to even know that :)


Quote Reply

Prev Next