No doubt. If anyone is seriously interested, an SRM dealer on slowtwitch is selling off 2012 models at 30% off. That works out to between $1900 and $2200 depending on which unit.

The one drawback with SRM is that the batteries in the PC7 and crank are not user replaceable unless you are comfortable with a soldering iron. Quarqs have a user-replaceable button battery. In my opinion they are not as reliable as SRM's, but service is top shelf.

Link?

That's the one I use too, but some people find the units conversion a pain.

I have a Quark and Powertap (not on the same bike, that would be too geeky). They're both good. With PT you can move it between bikes easily. With Quark you can use any wheels you like. They're both accurate enough for me, except for the PT's cadence guesser, which is terrible for me. If I cared enough about cadence I'd use a seperate sensor for it.

One disadvantage for the SRM is you have to send it in to get the battery replaced, or be willing to do some soldering on it. For my purposes the Quark (or PT) is accurate and consistent enough and much cheaper than the SRM.

I have a single Quarq unit, and move it back and forth between my road bike and my TT bike. It has become so quick and easy (I'm thinking ~ 4') I sometimes do it after dressed for a ride, just like pumping up the tires. One advantage to this method is that, because the crankset is removed so frequently, it's easy to keep it (and both BB's) well-maintained. I definitely prefer a crank based PM. Well, if Brim Brothers get their shoe based system released, and it's accurate, that would be pretty sweet: power data on any bike you ride.

The Brim Zone looks interesting... but details are pretty sketchy, and now they're quoting mid-2013. The engineer in me says 'oh, they're having some serious technical issues if they're slipping the schedule that much'. But, it does look really interesting. I wonder if it'll cost less than a crank or hub based system.

Steve,

I too am a numbers junky and got back on the bike after a couple year absence last August. My wife gave me an Edge 500 for my bday in December and it has been great. Yes, training has certainly changed since we were younger.

With regard to max HR. You've got to go test for it. The mathmatical and time trial estimates are just that, estimates. I'm only 42, but, ride with a number of 50+'ers. Their max's tend to be higher than the "average". I suspect, because the 'average' includes a lot of untrained individuals.

Anyhow, when I first got back on the bike, it was reasonably easy to achieve my max heart rate. Several months later, it was considerably more difficult and required tailoring a workout to achieving that. If you already have several months of aerobic conditioning in you may be facing the later.

At least in my case, to achieve max HR I need a good 20 minutes of warm up with a few efforts of increasing intensity. Then, I need a decent hill of at least 2-3 minutes in length. I start climbing said hill at around 80%rpe until my HR plateu's (low to mid 170's), then increase to 90% driving my HR up a few more beats per minute (175-180) and as my rate of HR increase slows or I feel fatigue setting in, I SPRINT FOR ALL I'M WORTH to exhuastion (183-185). At which point I need to be reasonably close to home. There is no way I can achieve the same result using a steady state hill climb.

I've stated to some of the guys I ride with that I believe they are underestimating their true Max HR becasue they have based theirs on either a steady state climb, where it plateus much like mine. Or, have performed a TT style LT test and have assumed the average HR of that to be their LT HR.

Anyhow. Enjoy the return to form. I certainly am.

I think you left out the step where you fall off and puke your guts out... but thanks for this, I think :injured:.

I've always struggled with the push to the wall and beyond, we'll see how I do trying this for the first time in a long while.

Intentionally. I haven't puked. Yet. But, that is the reason for noting that you really want to be close to home when you've completed this. Don't try it at the turn around point of a long ride.

I think most of us do. Hence the underestimating of most those TT based tests. I know that studies have repeatedly shown athletes are usually capable of more than they believe themselves to be.

I do not in any way advocate Max HR tests on a regular basis. And, I believe that most training guides would point out that "you should consult a physician, yadda, yadda, yadda," before attempting such.

Oh, and when you collapse, ....try to topple AWAY from the traffic:-)

I have done a similar test as bigfred. As noted, upon completion of the extreme effort be ready to feel like puking and peeing your shorts at the same time.

Lactate Threshold HR is more useful than MaxHR. Training zones are based off LTHR. How do people get the zones from MaxHR? They use a study which relates people's LTHR to their Max. BUT, that is different for different people, and it's trainable. If you train the right systems your LTHR will go up while your MaxHR stays the same. If you base your zones off LTHR it'll take that into account. If you're using MaxHR your zones will be off.

Here's a test for LTHR: http://www.joefrielsblog.com/2011/04...your-lthr.html

hum... ok, well... Now the newbie is all confused...

Racer Ex, as you were the one who mentioned the 5 / 20 CP tests originally, which would you recommend?

Maybe the original question needs to be reworded as this: I'm using an HRM in my training, how do I go about getting the zones set properly? If that's the better question, Ericm's reply may make more sense? :newbie is confused:

Here is the Low Key Hill Climb power calculator. It contains the NorCal climbs plus some international ones. You set the power and the weight and it calculates speed and time. I have found these to be pretty accurate. There is a Highway 9 climb, OLH, Kings Mountain and others. http://www.coastsci.org/Power/ClimbCalc.html

bigfred, I wasn't advocating using MHR to establish HR zones. Mine are based on the 20 min test using data from a power meter.

Interesting. It doesn't look like you can run this backwards (e.g. given the time to do the climb, and ave. speed, get the power number), but once you've
done the ride and have power estimates, you can see if this matches your actual results.

Is a twenty minute test the same thing as a Friel 30 minute test (where he has you toss out the first 10 minutes)?
It seems like the Friel test can be done on any ride (a climb is not required).

Not quite the same. Just pick one and stick to it

FYI I am 55 years old and my Max HR is 193. I could NEVER hit that in training.

Fair enough, and, agreed. However, it sounded as though the OP was working with zones derived from a mathmatical MaxHR. If that was the case, zones determined from a tested Max would probably be more accurate than the aforementioned, but, less than from a lab based LTHR.

I contend that the ride based LTHR approximations "may" result in an underestimation of the actual value. Some of us may be good at riding "as hard as we can" for 30 minutes, but, a lot of us could probably go harder or at least more evenly than we do. I know Carmichaels "field test" uses shorter duractions and he claims that helps offset this.

I would be interested in learning from those of you who have had the opportunity to do a lab (blood sampled) LT test, how did those numbers compare with your ride based approximations?

Anyhow, my daily HR response to a given stimulus varies by more than the difference between approx. LTHR bands and those based on measured MaxHR. It's not so easy to notice such on the road. But, when doing the same interval workouts on a fluid trainer and matching ones gear choice and speed, it's pretty easy to see the days when your HR is up or down. Hence, the superiority of training with power. Which, one day I hope to have.

All this for a bloody hobby!

See my response above. But, you're one up on me with the power meter. I do currently base mine on my "measured" max. When I formalized my training program, I performed Carmichaels "field test" a couple of times over two weeks. On both the road and trainer. Both resulted in lower bands than those I was already using from the measured max, so I've stuck with those. However, with the number of different coaches, ways of establishing bands, their realative width, the cross over between them and the fact that we then train realative to our weeknesses, does being a point or two low or high, really make any difference? If you're traing with HR, you're already off by that much just because of daily influences. Wishing I had a spare grand laying around for a powertap.......

No, it does not solve for time but you manually iterate for time by putting in different power numbers. It is easy to do. And for your weight, you can see how much time 10 pounds is worth as well as watts.

In reality, my ride times up OLH do not vary much. I can predict my climb time by the 3 second power I am producing.

don't we all...

But, I think I get the general sense of all of these comments, and it would appear (pending actually doing a test) that my 'estimated formula based numbers' are low, as compared
to the actual measured heart rates I'm seeing from my rides, AND that I'm probably over-training as well.

In any case, I'll be doing a test shortly and will report back so we can close the book on this.

My wife did tell me the other day that I could spend money on 'anything' exercise related as long as I used it... have I mentioned I love my wife?

But I think I'll N+1 first before getting a power meter. Besides, the shoe-meter seems really cool, so I may hold out for that.

Got it. that sounds very useful.

My MHR of 188 (the highest I've ever hit) is higher than an age based estimate. So initial zones I set based on age were really far off. I tried Friel's perceived effort test to find LTHR, and I believe those zones were closer. Then I had a metabolic test, which pushed them down, and then a later test, after I had gained fitness, pushed them back up.

Like Shovel, I never come close to MHR in training - I've only hit mine in crit's, and haven't hit it in quite awhile. Adrenaline contributed to my earlier efforts - my heart was racing even before the start. Now, I'm more relaxed, and also better at smoothing out my efforts. My HR general peaks in the mid-to-high 170's in a crit. Often less than that. On climbs, I'm generally wanting not to blow up, so I'm not going to hit my MHR during a climb in a race. If you hit your MHR in a race, it better be right at the end, or at a point where you will have a chance to recover, because you -will- blow up, and quite possibly puke, after hacking up a lung and a half. You may also cough for a week.

One advantage of power based training is that the testing is more readily made part of your regular training. You can test each month, and adjust your power zones as indicated. IMO, the only truly accurate way to nail HR zones is with a metabolic test. The additional benefit they provide is substrate utilization, so you know how efficient you are at burning fat versus glycogen, but getting them frequently is expensive.

Among us here, Hermes is the most eloquent about how we can let our minds limit our performance. There are points where you set the tables aside, and just push yourself past the point you ever thought you could. Fortunately, you can train that... you can learn to stop listening to your muscles and the negative thoughts. The people who win are almost universally extremely good at the mental aspects of the sport. It's something i continue to work hard to improve.

Just so you know you're on an 8 year probation here ;)

Pretty much spot on in my case.

I'd be pretty comfortable with the former but would need a lot more information to conclude that the latter is true, if you're using the most accepted definition of "over training"

I know people that are 4 years onto waiting for Metrigear.

My biggest issue with the shoe system, provided it really works, is that cable. I've had more than a few shoes that have had scuff marks right in that spot, from everything from crashes to emergency clip outs. I'm also wondering how dirt in the cleat could affect readings and how walking in the cleat is going to affect readings.

SRM is the most robust PM out there right now and even it requires a bit of careful set up to achieve consistent readings. There's very little technical information (on Brim) out there at the moment, so it's hard to get a handle on potential engineering +/-.

Devil is always in the details.

Well, I'm not sure I'm using the 'most accepted definition'... at the time of the original post I was thinking: 'If the HR zones are right, should I be riding at this tempo consistently'? After the discussion in this thread I'm pretty sure that 1) the zones aren't that right, and 2) I'm probably not going about this in the smartest / best way - there's just a ton to learn. But, that can be corrected. I'm going to look into getting a powertap wheel - maybe that'll go on Santa's list... I'll have to do some thinking about where I want to go with all of this.

As for the shoes - yeah - that external wire does sound a bit sketchy. With that much schedule slip, you know there has to be something that just isn't working well yet...

In any case, thanks (everyone) for all the discussion, its been very thought provoking.