I am not suggesting that I think this is the correct way or only way to train with a power meter. How you ride in training is of course dependent on what you are trying to achieve/training adaptation you are looking for for which a power meter becomes an excellant tool at help you to do so.

However I have heard a few complaints from people that train with riders using power meters that they are so slow going up the hills and cycle to fast going down (i.e. they are trying to spend as much time in what ever zone they have set themselfs for that part of the ride). Whilst at least on alot of the club rides I have been on the usual tendency is to blast up the hill and regoup/coast a bit on the way down.

Yes of course...that is an outstanding run. My point is that your HR profile is perhaps not the norm for somebody who ran as steadily and as hard as you did. Most folks who pace the bike carefully and run steady and hard have a rising HR profile over the second half of the run.

I'm sorry that I implied that you didn't push it to the limit. That's not what I meant to say.

I don't know -- but I see it a lot. It's an observation, not an assumption.

Just thinking out loud...HR drift is normal on long runs at a steady pace. If I do my long runs with a reservoir of fatigue already built (say, from a big-volume week) my HR doesn't drift up as much. HR response is known to be dampened in a fatigued athlete, and the tail end of an IM certainly involves fatigue. There is probably a natural tendency for HR to stay flat or fall over the course of an ultra-distance race, even at a steady pace.

I think what KP is saying is that we should seek to avoid that. We should pace ourselves such that we are still able to lift our HRs over the second half of the run.

That's a good observation. I feel that, in a group setting, the PM guys need to ride like the group. Solo rides are for following a set program. In group rides, I do what they're doing (if I can) and just watch the PM for amusement.

http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...post=1043009#1043009

Rick, You don't need to apologize. I didn't mean it that way. I totally agree, we share the same observations. Think about it, a neg split run on a declining HR profile??? That's freakin' weird. I had this conversation with Beppo (founder of 2Peak.com). He thinks it's an indication that I'm underperforming. All I got to say is if I am underperforming then my PE is definitely lying to me... ;-)

Thanks, Chris

All this conversation about HR from you "power people" is amusing me. There's a number of reasons why HR might climb (or not) towards the end of a race that have nothing to do with performance. To focus on it as a measure of anything doesn't make much sense.

As I said in my previous post, I had a conversation with Beppo and here was his response to this issue:

"not even the best pro's (from the data i've seen) are capable to burn fat for more then 8hrs using glycogen. we all end up running out at some point. then we need to burn proteins (muscles) to produce sugars in order to burn fat. this is a hormonal change that affects your cortisol levels and has other implications, but the one indication you will notice is that at the same effort HR goes up, all other
things being equal."

I can't comment more one way or the other as this goes beyond my understanding of physiology.

Thanks, Chris

never wrestle with a pig...

I've always assumed that people understand you never focus on any one thing as a measure of a good or bad performance. I think the point Rick is making is that it's just something to consider when you're evaluating all of the components/variables/elements of what might indicate a good or bad performance. Maybe I'm a good example (?). If you just looked at my HR run profile then you might conclude that I didn't run as well as I could. However, once you take all the other things into consideration then you would probably (or hopefully ;-)) draw a different conclusion.

Thanks, Chris

Well that one went right over my head...

But you see my point, right?

If you had a power file with HR climbing towards the end but steady power, what would you conclude? Climbing HR would just be a curiosity, increase of temperature, a little dehydration, whatever.

The same with the run, if you have even splits, who the hell cares about HR? Even if you positive split the marathon, something that btw a lot of good runners do, and HR goes up, what does that tell you? Nothing.

Chris, with all due respect, I think you are leaving lots of minutes out there on race day! That's why I made the comment about getting boxed in with all this data. Yes, I know no one wants to blow up, but in the end maybe you have to blow up or semi blow up once or twice to know your limits. I could be wrong, but again, if your HR is lower in the back half of the run, then why aren't you running harder? Just curious an no disrespect intended.

This is coming from someone who probably rides too hard (IV =1.11 IMCDA and 1.11 IMH, IF of about 80% on both) and has to hang on at the end of the run. What's the difference between b/r ratio's of 5:20/3:40 and 5:27/3:33? Nothing, right? The latter may feel be more comfortable than the former but they yield the same result.

So, I guess I would have to agree with Paulo on it's all about racing on race day, within reasons of course.

Steve

never wrestle with a pig... you get all dirty and the pig likes it. (something like that)

---

----------------------------------
Justin in Austin, get it? :)

Cool races:
- Redman
- Desoto American Triple T

But how do you leave minutes out on the course if you're going to the med tent, weaving in the road, have been close to passing out??? I'll admit, I left minutes on the course last year at IMH -- that was intentional. It was all about having fun...

What if I told you that I've never run faster than 1:33 half marathon? Ok. I'll admit, I've never ran a half marathon but that is my fastest Half-IM run. I know, I'm leaving minutes out on the course there too... ;-)

Again, I'm accomplishing my goals. Getting top 10 in my AG, never had a bad IM, etc. I'm betting there are very few people out there who experiment as much as I do. I find it interesting how so many people have opinions on things they've never tried. I voice my opinion (rather strongly), no doubt, but what you'll usually find is that it's an opinion on something I've already tried which is honestly more than I can say for a lot of people. I honestly feel very confident and comfortable with my conclusions (or should I say "observations"). Unfortunately I leave people with the impression that I constantly analyze and go my data. I use data to explain things to people because it happens to be the most quantitative way to do so. You might be surprised how much I go by feel out on the course. It is, without a doubt, the first and foremost variable I consider.

No worries though... I'm glad you're doing everything in your power to make me faster. That's what good friends do... :-)

Now let's get back to IFs, VIs, etc...

Thanks, Chris

...you both get dirty, only the pig enjoys it, and soon you both look the same.

Dude, if you have something to say, then just say it please. Enough with these cute little sayings.

Thanks, Chris

It (HR) does what it does. I'm just sayin' what I'm seein'. If I see it, I figure there must be a reason for it.

Not one reason, several reasons. Which one is right? Exactly my point...

[reply] I think people lose sight of how variable a VI of 1.03 to 1.07 really is.[/reply]

My typical VIs for training rides have been in the 1.04 to 1.07 range, however when I rode the hilly portion of the GFT racecourse my VI in that area was a whopping 1.23 with IF of 0.947 (due to bad gearing choice...had to stand and pull hard just to get up the hills). The earlier blanket statement that IM courses can be ridden with a very low VI doesn't apply to all courses.

Part of that has to do with your FTP. On the GFT course, any reasonable gearing (39/25 even) basically requires 250-275W to climb the steep hills. If my target AP for the course is 195W this is going to lead to a high NP and VI. If my FTP is 300W or higher, then I would be capable of riding up the big hills at 275W and be targeting a 225W AP...therefore my NP and VI are going to be lower. This is maybe an indicator that I should be using a compact crank... :)

---

---

Well, you should be using a compa...oh, you said that. ;-)

Yes, a VI that high is a clear indication that gearing choices need to be made. If one's gears don't allow power to stay low while at a comfortable cadence, then there's only one thing to do.

When working with new power users, I tell them to think of the shift levers as "power control levers." We stay in the cadence range that we like, and we use the levers to adjust the power.

<< I think what KP is saying is that we should seek to avoid that. We should pace ourselves such that we are still able to lift our HRs over the second half of the run. >>

I should have been more accurate so as to include some different HR findings due to any number of reasons.

Better to say that for most IMers, it is desirable to execute in a way that provides for rising _efforts_ on the run. This will often result in rising HRs. Not always. Cooling temperatures from mid day to evening, hydration, calorie intake, core temperatures -- all will effect HR as well as effort. Rising efforts on the run -- we hope -- will result in an athlete being able to maintain relatively consistent pace.

KP

Well, again, I have to disagree with you. My FT is about 260 watts right now. I did 8 min of climbing at IMH between 240 - 260 watts and almost 20min between 240 - 280 watts at IMCDA. Keep in mind, my FT was probably between 250 - 255 watts at IMCDA and my VI was 1.07.

Low is a relative term and we have to assume that people are somewhat intelligent about their gearing choices. So, can any one course in North America be ridden with a sub-1.1 VI? Absolutely. I think the question a lot of people have in their mind is whether they should be (with the assumption that your IF is in the appropriate target range).

Thanks, Chris

Chris, respect! I never said you were going slow, or were quitting or being lame. If you think about what I said, it was a compliment.

Re getting back to IF and VI. Ok, how in the hell can you even have this discussion (Bike split intensity and how it effects your run) without discussing what someone's running capabilties are to beigin with!?

If someone can run a 2:40 stand-alone marathon and then runs a 3:30 IM split, I'd say they under-performed. Likewise if their stand-alone was 3:05 and then they ran a 3:30, I'd say they pretty much rocked it.

How can you analyze your power data without knowing above data? Makes no sense to me....

Example, someones a strong cyclist and they ride a 5:00 and then run a 3:40, well that ratio doesn't look too good, but you don't know that he has no running background.