fstrnu

Ah you must mean a chart of pw:hr over time for visual analysis? Slope vs erg mode each has its advantages but fixed power will be much more precise for this purpose. Cadence can also be a factor. I have to fight to keep my cadence up even at low intensity. 3 times X is fine as long as you realize that it is skewed when looking at the data and trends/individuality is important so as long as you are comparing apples to apples you'll be fine.

gregf83 

Your evidence for the efficacy of training by Cardiac drift is a grainy video from an unsuccessful, now defunct business?

fstrnu

You missed quite a bit. It's a great presentation. I recommend watching the whole thing if you have time. Regarding your other questions, I have no idea where they are coming from.

fstrnu

Nope. And neither is the presentation.

wphamilton

I don't think I missed anything at all in the video about cardiac drift. I'm asking you, what did you learn about decoupling from it?

Regarding where the questions came from, Hermes said that he'd seen research regarding cardiac drift, and you pointed at that video and said "look again". I did look, and I saw no research, not even a reference to research, regarding cardiac drift. I'm not exaggerating: she gave a quick definition, said that high numbers were related to fatigue, and that's literally it. So rather than suggesting we all just dismiss it, I thought you'd appreciate the chance to elaborate.

Hermes

If you search NIH, there are several published articles that contain cardiac drift discussion. CD was observed in runners where running at a constant pace would cause HR to increase over time. At some point, one runs out of HR and speed begins to drop. So when running a marathon, one picks a pace such that one does not run out of HR and one maintains pace. The theory would be that the fastest time will occur at a constant pace.

The cardiac drift observed in runners was linked to increases in core temperature. So cooling is very important and therefore there is an ideal ambient temperature for distance running.

wphamilton

Some provocative points there that may be interesting to go into some some time. I felt like going down the rabbit-hole about the marathons, partly because the pace drop during marathons is also associated with muscle break-down chemical markers, which you might as well associate with cardiac drift if you're associating core temperature with cardiac drift. ie, a couple of things caused by something else which may be itself contributing to cardiac drift. But the marathon is adding some factors that we probably don't want involved IMO.


But back to this OP plan of changing intensity/duration according to whatever drift there was in the prior training session (or even in the training session in progress). Cooling may be a factor in CD. What you ate this morning, how much you've run in the last 10 days, how well you've slept, even emotional stress may also be factors. So you'd be making very specific changes in a single run (ride) based on very general inputs that may or may not have anything to do with the training goals for that session. It doesn't really make sense to me. Sure, you want to keep an eye on physical stress but I don't see CD by itself as doing a very good job of that.


More than anything else, it looks like OP is ultimately merely keeping the whole session in a range somewhere below the aerobic threshold. But finding the pace for that (or power on the bike) will do that without loading up confounding variables, so I don't really see his point.

Carbonfiberboy 

Cycling is a little different because of the emphasis on climbing, but much the same in that the idea is to have a climbing pace which can just be maintained on every climb in the ride. Researchers have found that the perfect temperature for cycling is 55°. Nice to live in the PNW. Rain also removes excess body heat, so really a good idea to ride in the rain to get the best workout.

fstrnu

There's no shortage of skepticism about the efficacy of using heart rate data because of confounding variables. Let's start a list of them, assess them individually with respect to indoor training at fixed power under controlled conditions and then establish how much comes out in the wash with longitudinal analysis: First, the list (feel free to jump in and I'll add them):
.

• Variation in power
• Variation in terrain
• Variation in cadence
• Variation in conditions
• Variation in hydration
• Variation in nutrition
• Variation in caffeine intake
• Variation in stress levels
• Variation in sleep quality
• Alcohol consumption

ERG training allows athletes to completely or largely mitigate for all of these such that changes in performance can be quickly and confidently attributable to changes in training status (fitness, fatigue, endurance) and even more so based on trend/longitudinal data analysis.

By definition, the absence of confounding variables means that the relationship between effort and power is due to fitness, fatigue or endurance.

Fatigue can also be added as a confounding variable depending on whether you want insight into fatigue. Personally, I prefer such insight and recent history of CD + HR is all it takes to see clearly enough the breakdown between fitness, fatigue and endurance.

Moreover, allowing fatigue to vary is self-regulating because a decrease in frequency or power will still meet the mission; especially if you are time bound and substituting intensity for duration anyway. But even then, you can still distinguish between fatigue and endurance because fatigue builds and dissipates much more quickly than fitness and especially endurance ; but also because of the clear presence of fatigue-induced heart rate suppression.

Hermes

fstrnu

While my protocol is designed to be systematic, personalized, accessible and effective, it doesn't even begin to fully leverage the power of ERG training. But people need somewhere to start. The reality is that this can be taken to much higher levels but for most only once they can begin to understand the basics and develop belief and curiosity necessary to embrace an empirical approach.

Having said that, cyclists will have to "pedal heard" (I prefer "produce more power") to challenge the body if time is short or they won't achieve adequate stimulus. Additionally, specificity will require increasing intensity as athletes go from general ==> specific. I know you know this and don't mean to insult your intelligence. I'm just saying it in case others don't realize it or don't realize that I realize it.

Bandera

That explains a whole lot.
Using a bicycle like testing apparatus in lab rat mode indoors vs cycling on the roads, paths, trails and tracks of the real world.
I can't think of anything more dismal, pointless and Sisyphean.
Oddly enough any "training" that I've done has been to build the endurance, power and speed to get up and over real hills and to hone the operational control of the machine at pace on open public roads.

As always, suit yourself.

-Bandera

fstrnu

For someone who loathes indoor training, you sure spend a lot of time in threads about indoor training

Hermes

Check this out below. I found this interesting.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5408286/

This study is also, to our knowledge, the first to demonstrate heart rate differences between mountain running and road running events. Compared to duration‐matched road races, participants in mountain races experienced no increase (MWRR) or a reduction (PP) in HR (both absolute and as percentage estimated HRmax) and slowing pace over the second half of the race. The observed increases in HR in the second versus first half of the half marathon and marathon are not surprising: cardiac drift, an increase in HR without a concomitant increase in work output (i.e., running speed), has been demonstrated in one‐hour (Ekelund 1967; Mognoni et al. 1990) and 4‐hour (Dawson et al. 2005) exercise tests and is likely resultant from lower stroke volume concomitant with reduced plasma volume (Hamilton et al. 1991) and lower diastolic function (Dawson et al. 2005). There is little reason to speculate that these factors do not affect runners at MWRR and PP— races of similar duration to the half marathon and marathon, respectively— so maintenance of heart rate in those events must be attributable to a factor sufficiently robust that it masks the effect of drift. Three potential explanatory factors, not mutually exclusive, warrant further consideration.

Altitude

The PP Ascent begins at 2382 m (7814 feet) and finishes at 4302 m (14 115 feet) while the Mt. Washington Road Race starts at 465 m (1526 feet) and finishes at 1917 m (6289 feet). The marathon and half marathons included in this study are held near sea level. Performance and cardiac function are undoubtedly impacted by the hypoxia encountered throughout the PP race: acute altitude exposure at simulated 4000 m (13 123 feet) increases heart rate and cardiac output during submaximal exercise to compensate for reduced arterial partial pressure of oxygen (PaO2), but maximal HR is reduced slightly, possibly due to reduced oxygen delivery to cardiac tissue (Stenberg et al. 1966) or increased production of epinephrine, which may have additional performance effects as it speeds uptake of glucose into muscle cells (Richardson et al. 1998). Wehrlin and Hallen (2006) found a 1.9 bpm decrease in maximal HR per 1000 m–in keeping with Stenberg et al.'s (1966) result at 4000 m– beginning at least as low as 1000 m, encompassing most of the altitudes encountered at MWRR. Thus, perhaps the lack of HR increase observed in mountain races does not reflect a reduction in percent HRmax (reduced aerobic effort), but rather lower HRmax resultant from hypoxia opposes cardiac drift and attenuates (MWRR) or completely negates (PP) a rise in heart rate in the second half of the race. Importantly, most participants in the PP Ascent live at and are ostensibly acclimatized to altitude, so many of their physiological responses during the race are not directly comparable with nonacclimatized runners; however, some HR effects persist even after acclimatization (Vogel et al. 1967).

srode1

Makes sense, I looked at my cardiac drift from a 15 hour ride which started at 6am, and when I compared before and after the peak temperature the CD went from double digit positive to almost double digit negative - overall for the ride was a little over 7.

srode1

Pw:Hr is a metric which Training peaks uses to represent CD / Aerobic decoupling - not a chart and numerically equivalent. Here's a link to a high level description - the name for the metric isn't intuitive. https://www.trainingpeaks.com/blog/h...ic-decoupling/

I do work to keep my cadence steady on my workouts, probably not a factor for mine.

Carbonfiberboy 

I'd forgotten about that - nearing the summit of Mt. Rainier, this sea level dweller experienced noticeably low HR for RPE. Exactly - there's not enough oxygen to work very hard. Intervals at sea level scarcely drop my oxygen saturation, but at 10,000', jumping jacks will quickly knock it down to 93%.

wphamilton

I have to remain skeptical of your claims here. First, the idea that a delta-hr somehow eliminates or diminishes the confounding variables of heart rate seems to me to be unsound both from mathematical principles and from what I know of physical processes in general. You're almost always going to have greater variation due to these factors in the derivative.

Secondly, I doubt that the cardiac drift, unless pretty extreme, presents any insight at all in "the breakdown between fitness, fatigue and endurance" and I would at least need to see that validated other than a bare claim. And in fact, whether or not fatigue can in general cause a suppression in the heart rate (and all that's really clear is a loose sort of correlation), all of those confounding factors mean that you cannot conclude an excessive stress due to a given momentary measure of cardiac drift. IMO.

fstrnu

Yep. I remember that now. Thanks.

fstrnu

Do you remember what 3 x 3 x 3 represents from the video?

Do you believe that the relationship between internal and external load reflects fitness?

fstrnu

The goal is to build fitness and endurance while keeping fatigue in check. As the title suggests, this is a different way of looking at indoor training ; not the only way to look at indoor training and not the only way to look at training. I'm puzzled at the general hostility about indoor training. Why are people who hate indoor training even in these threads. Do whatever you want, man. It's all good, yo.

Machka 

But why? For what purpose? For what events?


Most cyclists do indoor training as a necessary evil. Many of us do it, but only to keep in shape during a time of year when cycling outside is difficult. Cycling indoor is not the goal ... cycling outside is.

Although that said, occasionally we might have an indoor goal. When I did 4 hours on the trainer, that was my goal ... to try for 4 hours to see how it would go. I did it, it was OK. Just OK. And not something I've had a desire to repeat over the past 15 years.

We might be interested in your suggestions if you could tell us how they might help us ride the local century, do well in the first race of the season, tackle the local climbing challenge, etc. etc. ... outside cycling stuff.

If, for example, you were able to tell me that doing what you suggest for 6 weeks would put me in a good place to be able to cycle to the top of Mt Wellington, a challenging climb, then I might be interested. But if you can't come up with a reason to do what you suggest, why would we bother?

fstrnu

Sorry I missed this one because it started with side conversation. The idea is to minimize variability. Consistent conditions. Consistent diet. Consistent training. Consistent sleep quality. The inputs to the session have everything to do with goals for that session. Pace alone isn't enough. You need to manage all three programming variables.

fstrnu

Doing what I suggest will put you in a good place to be able to cycle to the top of Mt Wellington.

Machka 

19.5 km with 1273 metres of climbing.


OK, now how do you know? Have you done the training you suggest, and have then done a climbing challenge outside?