Another Field Test Q.

[Julibird]

A training buddy and I did a field test togther the other day. My first, her second.

Her first was done using the 30 min TT, pressing lap button into after the first 10 mins prtocol. Her averaged HR was 172. Month later, we do this togther - this time she does not see her monitor while riding, and maintains intensity just with RPE*. Her averaged HR was only 160. Why? She said she thought she was riding at threshold, but why the big difference?

My theory, she is averse to competition and suffering, but loves to train and be fit. I think her RPE is influenced by her environment/and people around her. She said she was well rested. Another variable - we rode in silence (to music). No one was cheering us on, or coaching.

*I know, I know. I get it - without watts, what does any of this tell us? Let's bracket that part of the discussion for the time being, d'accord?

[Todd S]

A training buddy and I did a field test togther the other day. My first, her second.

Her first was done using the 30 min TT, pressing lap button into after the first 10 mins prtocol. Her averaged HR was 172. Month later, we do this togther - this time she does not see her monitor while riding, and maintains intensity just with RPE*. Her averaged HR was only 160. Why? She said she thought she was riding at threshold, but why the big difference?

My theory, she is averse to competition and suffering, but loves to train and be fit. I think her RPE is influenced by her environment/and people around her. She said she was well rested. Another variable - we rode in silence (to music). No one was cheering us on, or coaching.

*I know, I know. I get it - without watts, what does any of this tell us? Let's bracket that part of the discussion for the time being, d'accord?

Unless you have some way to actually compare 'performance' levels between the two efforts, you're only guessing. The relationship between HR and RPE is highly variable from day to day.

For example, if I take two days off of the bike, I can easily ride with close to a 10 bpm difference (higher) at the same RPE and the same average power.

[Todd S]

Let's see if this works.

My own training from this past month, rehabbing from my most recent heart procedure self-limiting HR to 155, controlled conditions on an ergometer.

Notice the minimal correlation between power and HR.

http://i29.tinypic.com/156wg38.jpg

[CR]

Unless you have some way to actually compare 'performance' levels between the two efforts, you're only guessing.

What would be an example of 'performance' levels?

[Todd S]

What would be an example of 'performance' levels?

Sustained or average power over a given time period.

A field test based only on HR or RPE is like having a 10k race without a clock and judging the winner based on who 'felt like' they worked the hardest and who finished with the highest HR.

[CR]

Sustained or average power over a given time period.

A field test based only on HR or RPE is like having a 10k race without a clock and judging the winner based on who 'felt like' they worked the hardest and who finished with the highest HR.

Nobody ever said a field test was a race or any kind of competition so that's not a very accurate analogy. The field test I did was solo and was an all out effort for an extended period of time to get some sort of baseline assessment of fitness. I simply use HR in the absence of a power meter. As you said, it's a good way to set training zones and I would guess this number can be used at least as a reference in other situations too, whether it be in training or competition. Also, if tested on a regular basis in similar circumstances (route, weather, rest etc.)one notices significant increase over time in LT or Ave HR, wouldn't this be at least a good predictor of increased fitness which would likely equal better performance?

How did anyone ever train much less race without Power? I'm just jealous because everyone I know that uses power loves it and says it's the only way to train! I guess I need to cash in my kids college fund and get me one.

[Cheeze]

I have to agree with Todd. Because we aren't riding outside we can't measure distance/time or time for distance - so the only absolute we have on an IDC is sustained power or average power.

Juli there are alot of things or alot of combinations of things that could have caused the results you are questionning. IMO when you field test based on a variable entity like HR you have to keep everything the same as possible. Ei. same time of day, say environment (heat; music; training partner) same bike; riding with/without HR monitor; riding PRE vs HR; having someone yelling in your face; same amount of rest/recovery time; same amount of caffine; etc.

IMO when you guys rode without monitors and without music - you essentially rode a different course than you did the first time.

Cheeze

[CR]

Oops! I assumed we were talking about outdoors and you know what that does.

[Julibird]

Sigh. So I just have to get a PT. Thanks Cheeze and Todd - you are telling me what I knew you would. But hoped not to hear.

I was not surprised to find my own HR average for this test to be EXACTLY the number I guessed it would be (and I did not look at it while riding). I just went to the entrance to that familiar pain cave that I know from racing in the past (RPE-wise).

[Julibird]

Let's see if this works.

My own training from this past month, rehabbing from my most recent heart procedure

Hope all is well with you Todd.

[Todd S]

Also, if tested on a regular basis in similar circumstances (route, weather, rest etc.)one notices significant increase over time in LT or Ave HR, wouldn't this be at least a good predictor of increased fitness which would likely equal better performance?

Not necessarily. HR is only one piece of the performance puzzle. Your heart may be beating faster, but how do you know whether your stroke volume has changed or whether your working muscles are using more of the oxygen being delivered.

On average, you want improved performance while using fewer heartbeats, not more.