Cycling and bicycle discussion forums. 
   Click here to join our community Log in to access your Control Panel  


Go Back   > >

Training & Nutrition Learn how to develop a training schedule that's good for you. What should you eat and drink on your ride? Learn everything you need to know about training and nutrition here.

User Tag List

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 12-18-08, 10:13 PM   #1
Richard Cranium
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Richard Cranium's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Deep in the Shawnee Forest
Bikes: LeMond - Gunnar
Posts: 2,838
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Heart Rate Monitor - real life stats - results

I've produced a web page that shows what happened to me when I conducted two nearly identical workouts while wearing a HR monitor.

The first workout shows a higher HR because it was performed on the day following a couple of LT workouts on the previous day.

The next day, I did a slightly harder workout, but it shows less stress because I began recovering from the previous hard days work even inspite the low level workout for that day.

No big deal, but these charts show that I'm one of the few people that actually works out with enough discipline and knowledge to know when and why my workouts are effective or simply a waste of time.

http://geocities.com/mercian753/excel/hrtr.html

The first page explains the workouts, the second contain the charts of heart rate and load.
Richard Cranium is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-18-08, 10:36 PM   #2
umd
Banned
 
umd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Santa Barbara, CA
Bikes: Specialized Tarmac SL2, Specialized Tarmac SL, Giant TCR Composite, Specialized StumpJumper Expert HT
Posts: 28,387
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Cranium View Post
I've produced a web page that shows what happened to me when I conducted two nearly identical workouts while wearing a HR monitor.

The first workout shows a higher HR because it was performed on the day following a couple of LT workouts on the previous day.

The next day, I did a slightly harder workout, but it shows less stress because I began recovering from the previous hard days work even inspite the low level workout for that day.
No big deal, but these charts show that I'm one of the few people that actually works out with enough discipline and knowledge to know when and why my workouts are effective or simply a waste of time.

http://geocities.com/mercian753/excel/hrtr.html

The first page explains the workouts, the second contain the charts of heart rate and load.
Conceited much?
umd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-18-08, 10:36 PM   #3
gregf83 
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Vancouver, BC
Bikes:
Posts: 7,470
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 155 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Cranium View Post
No big deal, but these charts show that I'm one of the few people that actually works out with enough discipline and knowledge to know when and why my workouts are effective or simply a waste of time.
I'm not sure what your graphs show. Since you are riding on unloaded rollers with a, presumably, high cadence it could mean that you just got more efficient at spinning on the second day. It doesn't look like you were putting out much power so it's not clear what the purpose of the workouts was other than to improve your spinning technique.
gregf83 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-18-08, 10:40 PM   #4
CbadRider
Administrator
 
CbadRider's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: On the bridge with Picard
Bikes: Specialized Allez, Specialized Sirrus
Posts: 5,962
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
I don't need charts and graphs to know when and why my workouts are effective.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xerum 525 View Post
Now get on your cheap bike and give me a double century. You walking can of Crisco!!

Forum Guidelines *click here*
CbadRider is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-18-08, 11:31 PM   #5
8Lives
Senior Member
 
8Lives's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Berkeley, CA
Bikes: Lemond Zurich
Posts: 461
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
8Lives is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-19-08, 11:50 AM   #6
Richard Cranium
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Richard Cranium's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Deep in the Shawnee Forest
Bikes: LeMond - Gunnar
Posts: 2,838
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Quote:
Conceited much?
Yes, I figure on a scale of one to ten, I'm about at nine.

Quote:
I'm not sure what your graphs show.
The charts show that the first workout required a higher heart rate. I suspect the higher heart rate was a result of fatigue from previous workouts. Most of this is explained in the text on the first page.

Quote:
Since you are riding on unloaded rollers with a, presumably, high cadence it could mean that you just got more efficient at spinning on the second day.
That's silly. I've been riding rollers for years, there's no appreciable difference in efficiency of any of my "spinning" or pedal stroke.


Quote:
It doesn't look like you were putting out much power so it's not clear what the purpose of the workouts was other than to improve your spinning technique.
Both workouts were non-specific maintenance workouts. Their primary purpose is to maintain off-season fitness.

Anyone who is truly interested in understanding the nature of their own HR based training would do well to experiment and perform their own incrementally loaded and recorded, yet identical workouts to discover how much variance there is in their own HR at given loads.

Instead, much HR training advice stats are estimated by people who have no clue. Hence, my conceit, I actually know what I'm talking about.



Last edited by Richard Cranium; 12-19-08 at 11:55 AM.
Richard Cranium is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-19-08, 12:03 PM   #7
umd
Banned
 
umd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Santa Barbara, CA
Bikes: Specialized Tarmac SL2, Specialized Tarmac SL, Giant TCR Composite, Specialized StumpJumper Expert HT
Posts: 28,387
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Cranium View Post
Instead, much HR training advice stats are estimated by people who have no clue. Hence, my conceit, I actually know what I'm talking about.
You act like you are the first person to discover this. I think many of us have observed this and tested it. It's pretty well known that HR is very much affected by fatigue, as well as sleep, stress, caffeine, etc. This is why training with power is more effective than training with heart rate.
umd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-19-08, 12:11 PM   #8
Richard Cranium
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Richard Cranium's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Deep in the Shawnee Forest
Bikes: LeMond - Gunnar
Posts: 2,838
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Quote:
You act like you are the first person to discover this. I think many of us have observed this and tested it. It's pretty well known that HR is very much affected by fatigue, as well as sleep, stress, caffeine, etc. This is why training with power is more effective than training with heart rate.
Yeah, it's all old news. But, from the kinds of comments I see - i doubt many people actually check their own stats as intimately as I have.

Quote:
This is why training with power is more effective than training with heart rate.
This is the kind of silly crap that passes for knowledge. Actually, training with all the types of biofeedback available is the best methodology. Using "power" as a single measure of applied training stress does not preclude the benefits of other information.
Richard Cranium is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-19-08, 12:18 PM   #9
umd
Banned
 
umd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Santa Barbara, CA
Bikes: Specialized Tarmac SL2, Specialized Tarmac SL, Giant TCR Composite, Specialized StumpJumper Expert HT
Posts: 28,387
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Cranium View Post
Yeah, it's all old news. But, from the kinds of comments I see - i doubt many people actually check their own stats as intimately as I have.

This is the kind of silly crap that passes for knowledge. Actually, training with all the types of biofeedback available is the best methodology. Using "power" as a single measure of applied training stress does not preclude the benefits of other information.
I train with power but I still observe my heart rate (although many people will tell you that they don't), but my point is that heart rate is affected by many factors. One is of course fatigue but the others can raise or lower your HR for the same "performance" or "work". You may even have different heart rates but the same power and RPE.

FWIW, here are two identical rides from Monday and Friday. Nearly the same time and power, but today was a higher HR. It didn't "feel" any harder and I have about the same amount of residual fatigue. They are both recovery rides so neither is "well rested". THe only appreciable difference between the rides is that on Monday it was raining and the path goes down into a creek, which was closed so I had to detour a bit at the very end of "lap 3"

note: you have to ignore the "max speed", it gets spikes but there are corresponding down spikes and the averages work out.

Monday:
Code:
 Lap 1:
    Duration:      20:32
    Work:          205 kJ
    TSS:           13.5 (intensity factor 0.628)
    Norm Power:    176
    VI:            1.06
    Pw:HR:          -7.99%
    Pa:HR:          7.55%
    Distance:      6.433 mi
    Elevation Gain:        406 ft
    Elevation Loss:       359 ft
    Grade:         0.1 %  (48 ft)
        Min    Max    Avg
    Power:           0    302    167     watts
    Heart Rate:      67    152    130     bpm
    Cadence:         3    106    83     rpm
    Speed:           3    41.1    18.9     mph
    Crank Torque:    0    419    173     lb-in
 
Lap 2:
    Duration:      16:37
    Work:          164 kJ
    TSS:           10.1 (intensity factor 0.605)
    Norm Power:    169
    VI:            1.03
    Pw:HR:          -0.23%
    Pa:HR:          13.37%
    Distance:      4.845 mi
    Elevation Gain:        267 ft
    Elevation Loss:       324 ft
    Grade:         -0.2 %  (-57 ft)
        Min    Max    Avg
    Power:           0    348    164     watts
    Heart Rate:      111    149    130     bpm
    Cadence:         3    105    83     rpm
    Speed:           0.4    32.1    17.6     mph
    Crank Torque:    0    397    167     lb-in
 
Lap 3:
    Duration:      10:00 (10:34)
    Work:          96 kJ
    TSS:           6.3 (intensity factor 0.617)
    Norm Power:    173
    VI:            1.08
    Pw:HR:          -4.53%
    Pa:HR:          12.91%
    Distance:      2.863 mi
    Elevation Gain:        159 ft
    Elevation Loss:       155 ft
    Grade:         0.0 %  (4 ft)
        Min    Max    Avg
    Power:           0    308    161     watts
    Heart Rate:      96    143    129     bpm
    Cadence:         1    99    83     rpm
    Speed:           1.1    42.3    17.2     mph
    Crank Torque:    0    435    163     lb-in
 
Entire workout (164 watts):
    Duration:      47:46 (48:20)
    Work:          471 kJ
    TSS:           30.3 (intensity factor 0.617)
    Norm Power:    173
    VI:            1.05
    Pw:HR:          2.24%
    Pa:HR:          9.34%
    Distance:      14.305 mi
    Elevation Gain:        843 ft
    Elevation Loss:       844 ft
    Grade:         -0.0 %  (-1 ft)
        Min    Max    Avg
    Power:           0    348    164     watts
    Heart Rate:      65    152    129     bpm
    Cadence:         1    106    83     rpm
    Speed:           0.4    42.3    18.0     mph
    Crank Torque:    0    435    169     lb-in
Today:
Code:
Lap 1:
    Duration:      20:24 (20:52)
    Work:          208 kJ
    TSS:           14.3 (intensity factor 0.649)
    Norm Power:    182
    VI:            1.07
    Pw:HR:          3.87%
    Pa:HR:          5.17%
    Distance:      6.341 mi
    Elevation Gain:        402 ft
    Elevation Loss:       395 ft
    Grade:         0.0 %  (11 ft)
        Min    Max    Avg
    Power:           0    351    170     watts
    Heart Rate:      83    157    138     bpm
    Cadence:         1    108    82     rpm
    Speed:           0.2    45.4    18.6     mph
    Crank Torque:    0    539    179     lb-in
 
Lap 2:
    Duration:      16:33
    Work:          156 kJ
    TSS:           9.4 (intensity factor 0.585)
    Norm Power:    164
    VI:            1.05
    Pw:HR:          -7.87%
    Pa:HR:          17.27%
    Distance:      4.895 mi
    Elevation Gain:        283 ft
    Elevation Loss:       359 ft
    Grade:         -0.3 %  (-75 ft)
        Min    Max    Avg
    Power:           0    330    157     watts
    Heart Rate:      118    158    134     bpm
    Cadence:         4    102    86     rpm
    Speed:           0    33.2    17.8     mph
    Crank Torque:    0    381    155     lb-in
 
Lap 3:
    Duration:      9:24
    Work:          98 kJ
    TSS:           6.5 (intensity factor 0.646)
    Norm Power:    181
    VI:            1.04
    Pw:HR:          -4.33%
    Pa:HR:          10.55%
    Distance:      2.8 mi
    Elevation Gain:        190 ft
    Elevation Loss:       185 ft
    Grade:         0.0 %  (5 ft)
        Min    Max    Avg
    Power:           0    367    173     watts
    Heart Rate:      123    159    141     bpm
    Cadence:         4    120    89     rpm
    Speed:           0    45.8    17.9     mph
    Crank Torque:    0    466    165     lb-in
 
Entire workout (166 watts):
    Duration:      46:42 (47:10)
    Work:          466 kJ
    TSS:           30.8 (intensity factor 0.629)
    Norm Power:    176
    VI:            1.06
    Pw:HR:          1.69%
    Pa:HR:          4.64%
    Distance:      14.141 mi
    Elevation Gain:        889 ft
    Elevation Loss:       944 ft
    Grade:         -0.1 %  (-55 ft)
        Min    Max    Avg
    Power:           0    367    166     watts
    Heart Rate:      83    160    137     bpm
    Cadence:         1    120    85     rpm
    Speed:           0    45.8    18.2     mph
    Crank Torque:    0    539    169     lb-in

Last edited by umd; 12-19-08 at 12:22 PM.
umd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-19-08, 01:29 PM   #10
gregf83 
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Vancouver, BC
Bikes:
Posts: 7,470
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 155 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Cranium View Post
Anyone who is truly interested in understanding the nature of their own HR based training would do well to experiment and perform their own incrementally loaded and recorded, yet identical workouts to discover how much variance there is in their own HR at given loads.
Why? It's still not clear to me what you have learned from your experiment other than that after a hard workout you are better rested after two days - not really a novel conclusion. How will you use this info to get faster if that's what you are looking to do?
gregf83 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-19-08, 03:55 PM   #11
tanhalt
Senior Member
 
tanhalt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Bikes:
Posts: 772
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Cranium View Post
Yeah, it's all old news. But, from the kinds of comments I see - i doubt many people actually check their own stats as intimately as I have.

This is the kind of silly crap that passes for knowledge. Actually, training with all the types of biofeedback available is the best methodology. Using "power" as a single measure of applied training stress does not preclude the benefits of other information.
Ummm....this is an INDOOR training workout, right? How do you know that the differences in response were due to your state of rest? Could there have been different temperatures? Different cooling? Different levels of hydration?...etc., etc., etc.

So...according to your "test", being well-rested results in a lower HR response. OK, but tell me, what happens to your HR response on the 3rd day of a hard training block? Up or down?

Methinks you might be coming to conclusions/generalizations that aren't necessarily supported by the facts...

The fact that HR response is just that...a RESPONSE to the load...that's also highly variable and susceptible to all the factors (and then some) listed above is the reason why actual power output is a better measure of the training load than something based on HR. HR isn't bad...actually, it's better than nothing...but it can be improved upon.

And Steve...you should know better than to get in an argument with someone who's user name is a take off on "Dick Head"
tanhalt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-19-08, 04:51 PM   #12
Enthalpic
Killing Rabbits
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Bikes:
Posts: 5,168
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 29 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by tanhalt View Post

Methinks you might be coming to conclusions/generalizations that aren't necessarily supported by the facts...
Agreed. It’s really hard to draw meaningful conclusions from the available information.

You should have at least shown how you controlled or measured confounding variables. E.g. same time of day, same music selection and volume, same room temperature and circulation, same food and drink, same amount of sleep, same clothing, similar or identical athlete weight (important), etc, etc.

Hmmm maybe I should post a thread on how I analyze the HR data I get from my ergometer workouts…. sigh
Enthalpic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-19-08, 04:56 PM   #13
umd
Banned
 
umd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Santa Barbara, CA
Bikes: Specialized Tarmac SL2, Specialized Tarmac SL, Giant TCR Composite, Specialized StumpJumper Expert HT
Posts: 28,387
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by tanhalt View Post
And Steve...you should know better than to get in an argument with someone who's user name is a take off on "Dick Head"
I know
umd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-19-08, 10:11 PM   #14
slant911
My bike needs a new motor
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Henderson, Nevada
Bikes: Cervelo, Trek
Posts: 21
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
UMD,

What kind of equipment do you have to get those printouts that you have?

TIA
slant911 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-19-08, 10:58 PM   #15
umd
Banned
 
umd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Santa Barbara, CA
Bikes: Specialized Tarmac SL2, Specialized Tarmac SL, Giant TCR Composite, Specialized StumpJumper Expert HT
Posts: 28,387
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by slant911 View Post
UMD,

What kind of equipment do you have to get those printouts that you have?

TIA
The software is WKO+, combined with any power meter will give you the data, but I have a Quarq CinQo. Both of these rides was with my "older" CinQo on my cross bike, but I usually use the newer "Saturn" model.

umd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-21-08, 11:35 AM   #16
Richard Cranium
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Richard Cranium's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Deep in the Shawnee Forest
Bikes: LeMond - Gunnar
Posts: 2,838
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
UMD, its too bad your reports lost formatting when posted, if you can email them as text file or excel or what ever I'd appreciate it.

And yes, the roller workouts are identical in many ways - with the most notable exception how well I was rested. "same time/same setup etc....)

The rollers, my air pressure gauge and speedometer and watch are as close as I can get to training "by power." Unless you count doing squats with free weights - yuk, yuk....

The significance of the two workouts, and their purpose was to demonstrate the 'range' of CV stress between two days, with as little as possible extrinsic factors.

No, none of this has any real world value other than letting me know for the remainder of the winter what my "recovery" days HR should be. I will use this same sort of workout to determine whether I will perform LT or VO2 work the next day, or whether I may need to wait another day.

I'm pretty happy with my status. And I thought my little "pyramid workout" 6min increments, roller test was cute. And with the exceptions of other geeks with power meters, I continue to think most people don't do their "background" work to have a clue to know how and when to go hard. But I digress.....
Richard Cranium is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:52 PM.