Ergomo and Power Tap comparison

"scott patton" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Nick Burns wrote:

"chris" wrote in message

Moreover, power meters have become
the new HR monitor with numerous techno geeks AND serious cyclists
looking to buy them.

Power meters do not replace HRMs. I would be foolish to track power
without
heart rate.



I think you have that backwards....


http://www.topica.com/lists/wattage/...80634&sort=d&s
tart=15447

Posted today.

Scott

It works the same either way you state it. HRMs do not replace power meters
either. OK?

--
-*- Scott Patton
-*- Colorado Springs, CO
-*- http://www.FixedGearFever.com
-*- Track Racing Web Services

Nick Burns wrote:

Because CV response is critical.

Let's imagine we set up an experiment where we test power produced at
lactate equilibrium. We might take blood samples and measure lactate
concentrations at various levels of exercise which we can get from power
produced. Measuring heart rate in this situation isn't very valuable
since the HR at which lactate equilibrium is reached varies according to
other environmental conditions. (For convenience, you probably want to
do this in a lab, but there are situations, such as Indurain's hour
record, where it is done in the field.)

Yes, there is still a CV response, but it isn't the primary thing we
want to measure.
STF

"Stewart Fleming" wrote in message
news:1066858518.23821@ns...


Nick Burns wrote:

Because CV response is critical.

Let's imagine we set up an experiment where we test power produced at
lactate equilibrium. We might take blood samples and measure lactate
concentrations at various levels of exercise which we can get from power
produced. Measuring heart rate in this situation isn't very valuable
since the HR at which lactate equilibrium is reached varies according to
other environmental conditions. (For convenience, you probably want to
do this in a lab, but there are situations, such as Indurain's hour
record, where it is done in the field.)

Yes, there is still a CV response, but it isn't the primary thing we
want to measure.
STF

It is not primary, true. But the relative values from session to session is
very useful.

I am surprised that anyone would debate this. It seems to clear and obvious
to me. Maybe I am not explaining it clearly?

Doing lots of tests measuring power over various lengths of time, you can
come up with nominal rates of power. When you also track heart rate, you can
more easily predict if you are going to have a good, bad, or somewhere in
between session (if you are also monitoring during the session) or you have
a possible explanation when analyzing afterwards (depending on what the HR
curve says).

In article ,
Nick Burns wrote:

"scott patton" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Nick Burns wrote:

"chris" wrote in message

Moreover, power meters have become
the new HR monitor with numerous techno geeks AND serious cyclists
looking to buy them.

Power meters do not replace HRMs. I would be foolish to track power
without
heart rate.



I think you have that backwards....


http://www.topica.com/lists/wattage/...80634&sort=d&s
tart=15447

Posted today.

Scott

It works the same either way you state it. HRMs do not replace power meters
either. OK?

You are right on the replacement factor, but I would rather have a powermeter
any day...

Scott

--
-*- Scott Patton
-*- Colorado Springs, CO
-*- http://www.FixedGearFever.com
-*- Track Racing Web Services

"Phil Holman" wrote in message
k.net...
"scott patton" wrote in message
...
In article t,
Phil Holman wrote:

Thanks for supplying the info Robert. Interesting to see another
power
measuring device that probably doesn't perform any better than a
Powertap at almost twice the price.

Let's get the facts straight:

MSRP:
- PT w/Training Wheel - $799
- PT Pro w/Training Wheel - $999
- PT w/Race Wheel - $1099
- PT Pro w/Race Wheel - $1299
- Ergomo Sport - $1289

Still as fiesty as ever Scott. The market demand for such devices
being
able to support several companies is questionable. I thought the
$300 I
paid for my PT was OK. It was used but the hub had just been
replaced
and personally, I wouldn't pay over $1000 for one. This from their
website.....
"Fortunately for the consumer, there are several options on the
market
to choose from. At $1279, the Ergomo Sport® is a great value
considering
that the comparable competitor retails for more than twice the
price"........

They obviously don't consider the PT as being comparable.......more
straight facts no doubt.


"chris" wrote in message
om...
I can't say that I would agree with your assessment, Phil. One could
argue that it's hard to see how the market could sustain itself
selling $1500 wheelsets, which can't improve performance as much as an
effectively utilized power meter.

$1500 is a bit much but I observe more Zipp wheelsets than I do power
meters. One could argue that effective training isn't really that
dependent on a power meter. Having a comparable measurement from one
training session to another is likely just as good as an absolute
wattage readout. I can train just as effectively on a mag trainer with a
speedometer and I don't really need to monitor this for every training
session. There is more to be gained by riders who structure their
workouts instead of just going out and riding and this can be
accomplished with or without a power meter.

Moreover, power meters have become
the new HR monitor with numerous techno geeks AND serious cyclists
looking to buy them. In my experience, many non-elite riders want to
take the plunge to simply train better, and I can't disagree with them
(granted, I do have an interest in them buying).

I would like to think there was more of a market for a $200 dollar unit
that was say +/-3% accurate but this would probably be perceived as
being inadequate so teh purchaser shella out an extra S1000. What can I
say, good luck if they can sell enough of them to survive and make
money.



Having used many of these devices, I would say the Ergomo looks the
most promising because of its simplicity, weight and wheel usage.
Whether the leg issue comes into play we'll have to wait and see, but
I don't believe most healthy cyclists have such a (leg) discrepancy
that it would come into play. But we should find out soon.

Probably more a problem of a perceived flaw by a perspective purchaser
rather than an actual one.

Phil Holman

Nick Burns wrote:


It is not primary, true. But the relative values from session to session is
very useful.

How? If we are looking at when lactate equilibrium occurs, why is it
useful to know that under one set of conditions it is reached at HR of
170bpm and in another at 168bpm? Could we say that if, under the second
set of conditions, the athlete was exercising at HR of 168bpm, that that
corresponded to lactate EQ? Could we make a predicition about the
onset of lactate EQ under a third set of conditions based on the data we
had collected?


I am surprised that anyone would debate this. It seems to clear and obvious
to me. Maybe I am not explaining it clearly?

Doing lots of tests measuring power over various lengths of time, you can
come up with nominal rates of power. When you also track heart rate, you can
more easily predict if you are going to have a good, bad, or somewhere in
between session (if you are also monitoring during the session) or you have
a possible explanation when analyzing afterwards (depending on what the HR
curve says).

You could gather qualitative data (good/bad/indifferent) by measuring
subject response on a scale of perceived effort/exertion and monitor
that at intervals during the session.

For example, here's some data (apologies if this gets mangled in
non-fixed font).

Column 1 is time in minutes, columns 2 and 3 is HR in beats per minute
for an athlete in two separate test sessions (conditions: treadmill run
13kph at 32C, 50% humidity). Column 4 is time in seconds and column 5
is HR in bpm for a VO2max test (treadmill run, speed from 13kph to 19kph
in 2kph increments every 2 mins) for the same athlete.

T (min) T (sec)
2 131 112 0 128
4 134 130 30 135
6 137 130 60 142
8 139 139 90 143
10 140 143 120 143
12 141 154 150 145
14 145 155 180 149
16 146 156 210 154
18 150 157 240 154
20 151 159 270 156
22 151 162 300 162
24 150 163 330 163
26 152 165 360 165
28 153 165 390 168
30 155 166 420 169
32 155 166 450 171
34 131 167 480 173
36 116 168 510 169
38 149 169 540 174
40 156 169
42 157 170
44 158 170
46 160 171
48 163 172
50 160 174
52 160 174
54 163 175
56 163 175
58 164 176
60 171 176
62 169 177
64 168 177
66 168 177
68 169 178

VO2max was measured at 69.9 ml/kg/min for this athlete. Just using the
comparative heart rate data (since the treadmill speed and environmental
conditions were the same), what can you conclude about the two tests?
Was the athlete having a good or bad session? If so, which one? How
did they manage to run above VO2max HR (174 bpm) for 18 minutes in test
2 but never reach it in test 1? HR at lactate threshold was previously
measured for this athlete at 170bpm. Does that mean that they were
running for 26 minutes above LT in test 2 and never reached it in test
1? If speed at lactate threshold was being studied, would it be
sensible to use HR as the measure of LT? How do we treat the data if
the resting heart rate changes between sessions? Is it relevant?

Now go back to consider the situation where you are measuring power
output of a cyclist and trying to relate it to heart rate. Can you see
that there will be situations where the heart rate data will not tell
you anything useful - you cannot predict response in another situation
from data gathered in another.

Your response elsewhere was closer to the mark - that by knowing the
data, an athlete can relate the effort to how they "feel". It came as
no surprise to this athlete that LT was at 170bpm since that was the
same "feeling" as they had in flat 10km road races and data gathered
from an HRM _in similar situations_ confirmed that the _feeling_ was
correct.
STF

In article 1066869221.682151@ns, Stewart Fleming
wrote:

Nick Burns wrote:


It is not primary, true. But the relative values from session to session is
very useful.

How? If we are looking at when lactate equilibrium occurs, why is it
useful to know that under one set of conditions it is reached at HR of
170bpm and in another at 168bpm? Could we say that if, under the second
set of conditions, the athlete was exercising at HR of 168bpm, that that
corresponded to lactate EQ?

2 bpm isn't enough to worry about. Look harder at differences of 5+bpm.
The user should also be aware of the factors that can cause HR to vary
and they can make adjustments accordingly. For example, if your HR is 5
bpm high for a given power and it's hot, it's reasonable to back off
the power and train at the "normal" HR for that effort. If HR is low by
5bpm it may be an indication that you should not train at the "normal"
HR for that effort.

I am surprised that anyone would debate this. It seems to clear and obvious
to me. Maybe I am not explaining it clearly?

Nah. Just personal bias and infatuation with something new. What some
power proponents forget is that we don't have to chose between
measuring power *or* HR- we can utilize the information from both
measures.

Doing lots of tests measuring power over various lengths of time, you can
come up with nominal rates of power. When you also track heart rate, you can
more easily predict if you are going to have a good, bad, or somewhere in
between session (if you are also monitoring during the session) or you have
a possible explanation when analyzing afterwards (depending on what the HR
curve says).

You could gather qualitative data (good/bad/indifferent) by measuring
subject response on a scale of perceived effort/exertion and monitor
that at intervals during the session.

And how will an athlete record this PE throughout their daily training
sessions on a measurement scale that is consistent from day to day and
month to month?

How much does the LTHR of a trained person change during the season?
3-5 bpm? Small target. How much does the LT power of a trained person
change during the season? 30-80 watts? Wide target.

-WG

"warren" wrote in message
...
In article 1066869221.682151@ns, Stewart Fleming
wrote:

Nick Burns wrote:


It is not primary, true. But the relative values from session to
session is
very useful.

How? If we are looking at when lactate equilibrium occurs, why is it
useful to know that under one set of conditions it is reached at HR of
170bpm and in another at 168bpm? Could we say that if, under the second
set of conditions, the athlete was exercising at HR of 168bpm, that that
corresponded to lactate EQ?

2 bpm isn't enough to worry about. Look harder at differences of 5+bpm.
The user should also be aware of the factors that can cause HR to vary
and they can make adjustments accordingly. For example, if your HR is 5
bpm high for a given power and it's hot, it's reasonable to back off
the power and train at the "normal" HR for that effort.

And what evidence is there that this is what you should do?

If HR is low by
5bpm it may be an indication that you should not train at the "normal"
HR for that effort.

"May" seems to be the operative word...

I am surprised that anyone would debate this. It seems to clear and
obvious
to me. Maybe I am not explaining it clearly?

Nah. Just personal bias

Try "better insight into the physiology of exercise, garnered through years
of measuring power, VO2, HR, etc., under controlled laboratory conditions".
(Only in cycling do you find the infatuation with HR.)

and infatuation with something new.

Wrong - skepticism about the value of HR monitors/monitoring predates the
widespread availability of powermeters. For example, see the comments of
Drs. Coyle, Maughan, Daniels, etc., in this article:

http://www.gssiweb.com/reflib/refs/5...047.cfm?pid=96

(Also note that the single hold-out was the late Dr. Ed Burke...thus
reinforcing my point that it is only in the cycling world that HR holds such
sway.)

What some
power proponents forget is that we don't have to chose between
measuring power *or* HR- we can utilize the information from both
measures.

If you have power, then I'd say that HR data falls somewhere between
"occasionally useful" to "downright useless". I certainly wouldn't subscribe
to Mr. Harnish's claim that not monitoring HR is "downright foolish".

Doing lots of tests measuring power over various lengths of time, you
can
come up with nominal rates of power. When you also track heart rate,
you can
more easily predict if you are going to have a good, bad, or somewhere
in
between session (if you are also monitoring during the session) or you
have
a possible explanation when analyzing afterwards (depending on what
the HR
curve says).

You could gather qualitative data (good/bad/indifferent) by measuring
subject response on a scale of perceived effort/exertion and monitor
that at intervals during the session.

And how will an athlete record this PE throughout their daily training
sessions on a measurement scale that is consistent from day to day and
month to month?

That's simple: use the Borg scale. It works just as well as using HR - for
example, see:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...&dopt=Abstract

How much does the LTHR of a trained person change during the season?
3-5 bpm? Small target. How much does the LT power of a trained person
change during the season? 30-80 watts? Wide target.

If you prescribing training based on outdated information (either power or
HR), then you're making a mistake, period. One advantage of using a
powermeter is that it reduces or even eliminates the need to formally
reassess fitness, since training is testing.

Andy Coggan

"Nick Burns" wrote in message
m...

"Andy Coggan" wrote in message

Because CV response is critical.

Assuming for sake of argument that you're right, what then do you do
with
the information that HR provides you about your cardiovascular response?

Andy Coggan

It gives a measure on each ride of how much of your current CV potential
was
required to complete the ride or section of the ride.

And that tells me...?

If you are not tracking HR, you are bound to miss out on key information
when things do not go to plan. Imagine you complete a ride and you find
that
your average power was down. You have perceptions like "my legs were
toasted" or whatever but knowing where your heart rate was would tell you
more about what is going on.

And what can I do with that information that would be of use?

Cardiac drift happens and it is useful to know
when it happens.

Because...?

I am not claiming that you can't improve fitness without that data, but
that
you will have more information to track trends in the fitness of the
subject.

There is really no question about this.

Really? Some of your "elders" might disagree with you:

http://www.gssiweb.com/reflib/refs/5...047.cfm?pid=96

Andy Coggan

Uh Chris, a smiley face after a statement usually indicates that the writer
is making a joke.

Cheers,

Jim


"chris" wrote in message
om...
If one wanted to increase their numbers they could just buy an SRM and
input a slope coeficient half that of the one set for their meter.
That would give them nice big numbers. Then again, if they wanted to
do that they bought it for other reason besides improving
performance...

CH

"Jim Martin" wrote in message
...
"scott patton" wrote
There are others, you can find details @ http://www.ergomo-usa.com.

Thanks for the link Scott. Just looking at the device, it seems to me
that
it can only measure torque carried by the bottom bracket spindle which
means
it can only measure left leg power/torque.

If you are just using it to follow your own training it might not
matter.
Then again, you might adopt a left pedal power style to get bigger
numbers
;-)


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.528 / Virus Database: 324 - Release Date: 10/16/2003