Heart Rate Monitor - real life stats - results
12-18-08 | 10:13 PM
#1
Thread Starter
Senior Member
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 3,065
Likes: 69
From: Rural Missouri - mostly central and southeastern
Bikes: 2003 LeMond -various other junk bikes
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.
https://geocities.com/mercian753/excel/hrtr.html
The first page explains the workouts, the second contain the charts of heart rate and load.
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.
https://geocities.com/mercian753/excel/hrtr.html
The first page explains the workouts, the second contain the charts of heart rate and load.
12-18-08 | 10:36 PM
#2
Banned
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 28,387
Likes: 3
From: Santa Barbara, CA
Bikes: Specialized Tarmac SL2, Specialized Tarmac SL, Giant TCR Composite, Specialized StumpJumper Expert HT
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.
https://geocities.com/mercian753/excel/hrtr.html
The first page explains the workouts, the second contain the charts of heart rate and load.
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.
https://geocities.com/mercian753/excel/hrtr.html
The first page explains the workouts, the second contain the charts of heart rate and load.
Conceited much?
12-18-08 | 10:36 PM
#3
Senior Member
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 9,201
Likes: 289
From: Vancouver, BC
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.
12-18-08 | 10:40 PM
#4
Senior Member
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 5,929
Likes: 1
From: On the bridge with Picard
Bikes: Specialized Allez, Specialized Sirrus
I don't need charts and graphs to know when and why my workouts are effective.
12-19-08 | 11:50 AM
#6
Thread Starter
Senior Member
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 3,065
Likes: 69
From: Rural Missouri - mostly central and southeastern
Bikes: 2003 LeMond -various other junk bikes
Conceited much?
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.
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.
12-19-08 | 12:03 PM
#7
Banned
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 28,387
Likes: 3
From: Santa Barbara, CA
Bikes: Specialized Tarmac SL2, Specialized Tarmac SL, Giant TCR Composite, Specialized StumpJumper Expert HT
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.
12-19-08 | 12:11 PM
#8
Thread Starter
Senior Member
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 3,065
Likes: 69
From: Rural Missouri - mostly central and southeastern
Bikes: 2003 LeMond -various other junk bikes
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.
This is why training with power is more effective than training with heart rate.
12-19-08 | 12:18 PM
#9
Banned
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 28,387
Likes: 3
From: Santa Barbara, CA
Bikes: Specialized Tarmac SL2, Specialized Tarmac SL, Giant TCR Composite, Specialized StumpJumper Expert HT
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.
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.
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
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.
12-19-08 | 01:29 PM
#10
Senior Member
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 9,201
Likes: 289
From: Vancouver, BC
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.
12-19-08 | 03:55 PM
#11
Senior Member
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 778
Likes: 0
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.
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.
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"
12-19-08 | 04:51 PM
#12
Killing Rabbits
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 5,696
Likes: 217
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
12-19-08 | 04:56 PM
#13
Banned
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 28,387
Likes: 3
From: Santa Barbara, CA
Bikes: Specialized Tarmac SL2, Specialized Tarmac SL, Giant TCR Composite, Specialized StumpJumper Expert HT
12-19-08 | 10:58 PM
#15
Banned
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 28,387
Likes: 3
From: Santa Barbara, CA
Bikes: Specialized Tarmac SL2, Specialized Tarmac SL, Giant TCR Composite, Specialized StumpJumper Expert HT
12-21-08 | 11:35 AM
#16
Thread Starter
Senior Member
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 3,065
Likes: 69
From: Rural Missouri - mostly central and southeastern
Bikes: 2003 LeMond -various other junk bikes
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.....
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.....
