"The 33"-Road Bike Racing - Heart rate vs power meter

Glad I did not waste my money on a power meter. Sorry if this was posted before.

http://www.bicycling.com/article/0,6610,s1-1-8-18611-1,00.html

Yup. No point buying a tool if you don't know how to use it.

Yup. No point buying a tool if you don't know how to use it.

I know it's just Bicycling but we can assume in good faith they did proper LT and MAP testing. Over half the board trains with power so it doesn't take Nostradamus to see where this ship is sailing.

I know it's just Bicycling but we can assume in good faith they did proper LT and MAP testing.

You assume a lot. The Bicycling article is a summary of a single research paper focusing on a very specific and limited application of a power meter or heart rate monitor. There is some dispute about the validity of the results; but ignoring that, the most that can be said is there was no difference in performance when the power meter and HRM were applied in that one specific way. The paper never explored the question of whether that was the appropriate manner to employ those tools.

So the research says that 2 groups of people doing identical workouts performed statistically equal in terms of improvement. All that this proves is that bolting a powertap on your bike does not necessarily make you faster. Thank you, Bicycling. (BTW, I don't have a power device, but I'd love to. The whole idea is to use it to train differently and more effectively. Duh!)

what to I type to make a "shakes head in disappointment" face?

The picard facepalm image works nicely

:wtf: close enough.

The picard facepalm image works nicely

very true..... can a I get a "Pickard Facepalm" please?

That article doesn't even make sense.


half the riders performed intervals at 80 percent of their peak power while the other group used their heart-rate readings that coincided with 80 percent of peak power. Their twice-a-week workouts consisted of eight four-minute intervals with 90 seconds of rest.

80% of your peak power for 4 minutes? I don't think that is humanly possible.

Do they mean 80% of your peak 4 minute power?

very true..... can a I get a "Pickard Facepalm" please?

http://i252.photobucket.com/albums/hh15/supporter555/picard-facepalm.jpg

:roflmao2:

sorry, but i'll stick to my powermeter. HR is nearly useless.

I wonder... do any power meter manufacturers advertise/support/sponsor Bicycling Magazine?

based on two workouts a week for four weeks. that's some sample.

Glad I did not waste my money on a power meter.

http://images.google.com/url?source=imgres&ct=tbn&q=http://walsho.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/fail.jpg&usg=AFQjCNHZpTF1DO5JgP-cdBCChBEmsK_hSQ

I failed because I did not spend $1200 minimum on a power meter that may or may not help me ride my bike faster? I can live with that. I have been riding/racing for almost 20 years now and have seen every kind of wonder thing that will make you faster, I think Eddy had it right when asked how he trains. I ride my bike a lot.

I failed because I did not spend $1200 minimum on a power meter that may or may not help me ride my bike faster? I can live with that. I have been riding/racing for almost 20 years now and have seen every kind of wonder thing that will make you faster, I think Eddy had it right when asked how he trains. I ride my bike a lot.

You failed because you have no idea of how much a power meter costs in the real world. You failed because you tried to justify your preconceptions with a bad summary of a weak publication. If you don't want to train with a powermeter, fine; just don't try to argue there's no benefit for the rest of us. And you failed because you were unable to distinguish between advances that truly benefit performance (aerobars, deep profile rims, ...) from those that do not.

You also may want to go back and take a closer look at Merckx's career. He was well known for taking advantage of every technical development available to him. Had he had the chance, he would have been one of the first to adopt power-based training.

You failed because you have no idea of how much a power meter costs in the real world. You failed because you tried to justify your preconceptions with a bad summary of a weak publication. If you don't want to train with a powermeter, fine; just don't try to argue there's no benefit for the rest of us. And you failed because you were unable to distinguish between advances that truly benefit performance (aerobars, deep profile rims, ...) from those that do not.

You also may want to go back and take a closer look at Merckx's career. He was well known for taking advantage of every technical development available to him. Had he had the chance, he would have been one of the first to adopt power-based training.

I have fun riding my bike and I race pretty well, but according to you I fail because I do not have a power meter, I personally do not know the Sport Science Institute of South Africa but apparently you are much smarter than them and me and have seen a dramatic increase in your speed since having one. I just hope we never meet in a race as you and your power meter would certainly crush me. I did not say it could not help some, all I said was I am glad I did not waste my money on one. I am not against power meters I just do not think think the cost is worth it. If I had bought one I would probably try to justify it too.

I am not against power meters I just do not think think the cost is worth it.

You can't get through even one sentence without contradicting yourself. You say you're not against power meters, but then say they're not worth the money (at a cost you inflated by almost 100%). If you'd written, "I don't think the cost is worth it to me," everyone would have yawned and gone on their way. By writing what you did, however, you took it a step further and tried to generalize to all the rest of us; each with his or her own goals, training time, and resources (financial and otherwise). By doing so, you failed.

As to being smarter than the Sport Science Institute of South Africa, you're the one who took the information in their paper and drew conclusions well beyond what they were willing publish. It would seem you're the one who thinks he's smarter than they are.

I know it's just Bicycling but we can assume in good faith they did proper LT and MAP testing. Over half the board trains with power so it doesn't take Nostradamus to see where this ship is sailing.

It wasn't bicycling who did this study.

http://www.nsca-jscr.org/pt/re/jscr/abstract.00124278-200903000-00034.htm;jsessionid=JzqZ7xt1pcGnPWCZJjJ1hr2m90pqgwPfZpDLgjlyDSYCfBB2XNgF!1689917466!181195629!8091!-1

Here is the abstract:
Swart, J, Lamberts, RP, Derman, W, and Lambert, MI. Effects of high-intensity training by heart rate or power in well-trained cyclists. J Strength Cond Res 23(2): 619-625, 2009-The aim of this study was to determine whether the performance of cyclists after 4 weeks of high-intensity training improved similarly using either heart rate or power to prescribe training. Twenty-one well-trained men cyclists (age, 32 ± 6 years; peak power output, 371 ± 46 W) were randomly assigned to a power-based (GPOWER) or heart rate-based (GHEART) high-intensity training (HIT) group or a control group (GCONTROL). Training consisted of 8 repetitions of 4 minutes at either 80% of peak power output (GPOWER) or at the heart rate coinciding with 80% of peak power output (GHEART), with rest periods of 90 seconds. A 40-km time trial and V̇o2max test were performed before and after 8 training sessions. There were significant improvements (p < 0.05) in peak power output (GPOWER = 3.5%; GHEART = 5.0%) and 40-km time trial performance (GPOWER = 2.3%; GHEART = 2.1%) for both of the high-intensity groups. Although there were no significant differences between groups for these variables, when the data were analyzed using magnitude-based effects, the GHEART group showed greater probability of a beneficial effect for peak power output. The current general perception that prescribing training based only on power is more effective than prescribing training based on heart rate was not supported by the data from this study. Coaches who are unable to monitor progress frequently should prescribe training based on heart rate, when intervals are performed under stable conditions, because this may provide an additional advantage over prescribing training using power.

Notes:
They used trained subjects.
Intervals were 8x4 minutes, 90 seconds rest
The abstract does not explain how the 80% figures (GPOWER and GHEART) were determined.

Concerning cost:
A refurb Garmin Edge 305 can be had for $200. Cheap models cost less than $50.
The lowest I've seen a Powertap already laced to a wheel is about $700.

A power meter costs about 3 times as much as a good heart rate monitor. At what point will this 3x factor become worthwhile?

It wasn't bicycling who did this study.

http://www.nsca-jscr.org/pt/re/jscr/abstract.00124278-200903000-00034.htm;jsessionid=JzqZ7xt1pcGnPWCZJjJ1hr2m90pqgwPfZpDLgjlyDSYCfBB2XNgF!1689917466!181195629!8091!-1

peak power output, 371 ± 46 W

A peak power of only 371 ± 46 W using well trained athletes!? I'm sure they ment threshold power

I have fun riding my bike and I race pretty well, but according to you I fail because I do not have a power meter, I personally do not know the Sport Science Institute of South Africa but apparently you are much smarter than them and me and have seen a dramatic increase in your speed since having one. I just hope we never meet in a race as you and your power meter would certainly crush me. I did not say it could not help some, all I said was I am glad I did not waste my money on one. I am not against power meters I just do not think think the cost is worth it. If I had bought one I would probably try to justify it too.

To me it was take a pound or two of weight off the bike, or buy something that can help me get faster. So the $660 powertap wheel makes a lot more sense than some carbon cranks or weight weenie parts.

http://www.competitivecyclist.com/road-bikes/product-components/2009-cycleops-power-tap-compdt-rr-1.1-complete-wheel-5905.380.0.html

It wasn't bicycling who did this study.

http://www.nsca-jscr.org/pt/re/jscr/abstract.00124278-200903000-00034.htm;jsessionid=JzqZ7xt1pcGnPWCZJjJ1hr2m90pqgwPfZpDLgjlyDSYCfBB2XNgF!1689917466!181195629!8091!-1

Here is the abstract:
Swart, J, Lamberts, RP, Derman, W, and Lambert, MI. Effects of high-intensity training by heart rate or power in well-trained cyclists. J Strength Cond Res 23(2): 619-625, 2009-The aim of this study was to determine whether the performance of cyclists after 4 weeks of high-intensity training improved similarly using either heart rate or power to prescribe training. Twenty-one well-trained men cyclists (age, 32 ± 6 years; peak power output, 371 ± 46 W) were randomly assigned to a power-based (GPOWER) or heart rate-based (GHEART) high-intensity training (HIT) group or a control group (GCONTROL). Training consisted of 8 repetitions of 4 minutes at either 80% of peak power output (GPOWER) or at the heart rate coinciding with 80% of peak power output (GHEART), with rest periods of 90 seconds. A 40-km time trial and V̇o2max test were performed before and after 8 training sessions. There were significant improvements (p < 0.05) in peak power output (GPOWER = 3.5%; GHEART = 5.0%) and 40-km time trial performance (GPOWER = 2.3%; GHEART = 2.1%) for both of the high-intensity groups. Although there were no significant differences between groups for these variables, when the data were analyzed using magnitude-based effects, the GHEART group showed greater probability of a beneficial effect for peak power output. The current general perception that prescribing training based only on power is more effective than prescribing training based on heart rate was not supported by the data from this study. Coaches who are unable to monitor progress frequently should prescribe training based on heart rate, when intervals are performed under stable conditions, because this may provide an additional advantage over prescribing training using power.

Notes:
They used trained subjects.
Intervals were 8x4 minutes, 90 seconds rest
The abstract does not explain how the 80% figures (GPOWER and GHEART) were determined.

What would have been cool with the study was a group not using either. I wonder if just doing the training increased both groups and the computer did little.

A peak power of only 371 ± 46 W using well trained athletes!? I'm sure they ment threshold powerIt was the peak power(MAP) measured during a VO2max ramp test.

Guess what, you can get very fit, and win races training on perceived effort alone.

You can get very fit and win races training with an HRM.

You can get very fit and win races training with a Power Meter.

The fact that people who do this for a living favor power meters by an order of magnitude would indicate there is some advantage to a power meter.

It is clear however that a power meter is not necessary. Whether it is a cost effective tool for you, in part depend on your wallet and your priorities.

One thing that has been overlooked in the posts so far is that the group that used heartrate to monitor workouts first had to calibrate their heartrate @ 80% power. I don't know of any way to do that without a power meter.

What I have noticed is that (within reason) there is a pretty good mapping between power and heartrate. I use this for spin class or when I'm on a bike that doesn't have a powertap. But the only way I know which heartrate to use is because I have a few months experience now with what heartrates correspond to what power levels.

There should have been a control group who just went off RPE...

One thing that has been overlooked in the posts so far is that the group that used heartrate to monitor workouts first had to calibrate their heartrate @ 80% power. I don't know of any way to do that without a power meter.


Good point. It makes the premise of the research even more absurd.

There is only 1 real counter-point that I can think of to doing power based workouts. Since more workouts are being developed with power, it's easier to use that knowledge an apply it's philosophy to something like HR or PE. You're essentially using the workouts developed by people who can afford power measurement, but you're doing it with whatever you have available. Regardless, you're not going to do the workouts as accurately or precisely as if you could continuously measure power.

It doesn't sound like they controleld the rest of the workouts. It would be interesting to get my hands on the rest of the article.

If you assume that ftp happens within 72-75% of peak power for a MAP test, the estimated range of ftps in the study are 234 - 313 watts. How well trained are they? Are they all racers or are some recreational riders? It would be interesting to see a breakdown of their cycling demographics. I wonder if just having a solid train schedule was what accounted for the increase.

Taking my ftp, my estimated map test peak wattage would be ftp/.72, and then multiplying that by .8 = 1.11 * ftp gets me their workout. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it is basically VO2 intervals (8 x 4' @ 1.11 * ftp with 90" RI). Would just doing VO2 intervals have a significant effect on ftp?

Also, I wonder if the results had something to do with the power riders becoming fatigued and not being able to complete the workout (hit target wattages more consistently) and the people with HR training finishing the workout, but more in terms of an ftp-type because of HR drift. I wonder what power device they used, or did they have to come into the lab to use the device there when the HR trainers could use their own bike?

Unfortunately, I have to buy the article to read it, and it doesn't interest me that much.

I failed because I did not spend $1200 minimum on a power meter that may or may not help me ride my bike faster? I can live with that. I have been riding/racing for almost 20 years now and have seen every kind of wonder thing that will make you faster, I think Eddy had it right when asked how he trains. I ride my bike a lot.

Who said a powermeter would make you faster?

Regardless, you're not going to do the workouts as accurately or precisely as if you could continuously measure power.

If (and this is a big if) there is any bit of information to take from this study, maybe it is that the accuracy and precision of the workouts is not important. Presumably those doing the workout with a power meter did them with much more precision and accuracy than those doing it with the HR monitor, and it didn't improve thier results. Of course this still wouldn't prove that it is better to train with HR than power.

If (and this is a big if) there is any bit of information to take from this study, maybe it is that the accuracy and precision of the workouts is not important. Presumably those doing the workout with a power meter did them with much more precision and accuracy than those doing it with the HR monitor, and it didn't improve thier results. Of course this still wouldn't prove that it is better to train with HR than power.

“Over four weeks, half the riders performed intervals at 80 percent of their peak power while the other group used their heart-rate readings that coincided with 80 percent of peak power.”


See the irony here?

^^what challaday said

“Over four weeks, half the riders performed intervals at 80 percent of their peak power while the other group used their heart-rate readings that coincided with 80 percent of peak power.”


See the irony here?

Wow.

I think the kicker here is that powermeter was used for both groups. They had to determine at what HR 80% peak power was put out for the group using just HR. Then the training plan was based on this HR. Without the power data, this group would not have been able to determine the HR at which 80% peak power was achieved and thus they would not have be able to train as effectively as those using just a power meter. I would've liked to see a study of power users versus a perceived effort HR group who had no access to at what HR do they achieve 80% peak power.

That's what wfrogge was trying to point out with the "See the irony here?" line.

That's what wfrogge was trying to point out with the "See the irony here?" line.

hadn't read his post yet

o yeah, I get all my training tips from Bicycling magazine.

“Over four weeks, half the riders performed intervals at 80 percent of their peak power while the other group used their heart-rate readings that coincided with 80 percent of peak power.”


See the irony here?I think their thinking was that a rider could go into a lab and have their peak power, VO2Max, HR etc characterized and from there a training plan derived whereby the rider used HR during intervals. Once a particular HR is established for an 80% power interval, for example, it is unlikely to change for a particular rider during a racing season so it wouldn't really be necessary to continually retest power outside of a controlled lab.

I don't see why this technique wouldn't work well for a racing team with a limited budget.

I think their thinking was that a rider could go into a lab and have their peak power, VO2Max, HR etc characterized and from there a training plan derived whereby the rider used HR during intervals. Once a particular HR is established for an 80% power interval, for example, it is unlikely to change for a particular rider during a racing season so it wouldn't really be necessary to continually retest power outside of a controlled lab.

I don't see why this technique wouldn't work well for a racing team with a limited budget.


Highlighted in bold is incorrect. My max and LT HR varies with the weather (literally). Hell I can be a little dehydrated and my HR zones would not match previous weeks....


Another issue... Cardiac drift with long intervals and the inability to use HR for high intensity/short duration efforts.

Highlighted in bold is incorrect. My max and LT HR varies with the weather (literally). Hell I can be a little dehydrated and my HR zones would not match previous weeks....
You may change but the study they cited in the paper, "Lucia, A, Hoyos, J, Perez, M, and Chicharro, JL. Heart rate and performance parameters in elite cyclists: a longitudinal study. Med Sci Sports Exerc 32: 1777–1782, 2000." didn't find much variation among pro cyclists (+/- 3bpm) during the course of a season.

You'd probably be surprised how much variation there is in the accuracy of your power meter between 20F and 100F as well.

You'd probably be surprised how much variation there is in the accuracy of your power meter between 20F and 100F as well.

The strain gauges on a Power Tap are temperature compensated. I've tested several Power Taps in an unheated garage over a wide range of temperatures and saw no variation.

The strain gauges on a Power Tap are temperature compensated. I've tested several Power Taps in an unheated garage over a wide range of temperatures and saw no variation.I'd believe the variation over Temp (20-100F) and time is small, eg +/- 3% or so, but I don't believe it's zero.

I'd believe the variation over Temp (20-100F) and time is small, eg +/- 3% or so, but I don't believe it's zero.

Sorry I didn't think to take pictures of the torque for you. Believe what you want, but if you check with other owners, they'll tell you the same thing. There is no variation in torque with temperature to the accuracy of the display.

The fact that people who do this for a living favor power meters by an order of magnitude would indicate there is some advantage to a power meter.


Those same people are starting to favor ceramic bearings and sub 900 gram frames too....I'm just sayin.

“Over four weeks, half the riders performed intervals at 80 percent of their peak power while the other group used their heart-rate readings that coincided with 80 percent of peak power.”


See the irony here?

I see the irony, but it doesn't negate what I wrote. Yes you need a power meter to find out what hr corresponds to thier 80% power level. But even if you have that number, training with hr is going to be less precise than training with power due to other influences on hr. In this limited study it didn't make a difference. I'm not saying training with hr is as good as training with power.

I see the irony, but it doesn't negate what I wrote. Yes you need a power meter to find out what hr corresponds to thier 80% power level. But even if you have that number, training with hr is going to be less precise than training with power due to other influences on hr. In this limited study it didn't make a difference. I'm not saying training with hr is as good as training with power.

I think you two agree.

I think you two agree.

Me too.