|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Ads |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Ergomo and Power Tap comparison
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 |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Ergomo and Power Tap comparison
"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). |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Ergomo and Power Tap comparison
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 |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Ergomo and Power Tap comparison
"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 |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Ergomo and Power Tap comparison
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 |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Ergomo and Power Tap comparison
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 |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Ergomo and Power Tap comparison
"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 |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Ergomo and Power Tap comparison
"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 |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Ergomo and Power Tap comparison
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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
what power measurement device do you use? | Robert Chung | Racing | 7 | August 19th 03 10:23 AM |