Originally Posted by
nycphotography
Just a hunch, but using a 30 sec moving average of power, but a CURRENT value for HR, as it is effectively already a moving average, one implemented very efficiently by biology, will probably get an even higher r.
And then, I'd try t from 20 to 60 seconds in 1 second intervals to see which lag factor was most effective (at least for that individual).
(and I've been meaning to do this for a while, but the stupid data files are all proprietary formats rather than the nice old CSV files I used to get from my power tap, and I hate XML with an absolute passion)
I just realized there was an error in my calculation, so I re-did the entire thing again. Here's the summary plot, showing his data at 1, 5, 10, 15, etc. second averages. I've suppressed the scales on the x and y-axes to hide his actual values but the x-axis is power and the y-axis is hr. The correlation coeff is in the lower right of each panel.
Sorry for my error; thanks for making me think about it again.
