Power Meters?

On Sunday, May 2, 2021 at 10:18:55 AM UTC-7, wrote:
Op zondag 2 mei 2021 om 17:57:26 UTC+2 schreef jbeattie:
On Saturday, May 1, 2021 at 6:56:13 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
On Sat, 1 May 2021 18:20:59 -0700 (PDT), jbeattie
wrote:
On Saturday, May 1, 2021 at 5:46:48 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
On Sat, 1 May 2021 07:46:12 -0700, sms
wrote:
On 5/1/2021 7:42 AM, Mark cleary wrote:

snip

Well I think I have figured this out. I don't need a power meter as I am in shape and know how to get in shape or stay in shape. I don't race at all and I am getting slower although the decline is something I can manage. What I have not managed is my decline in running ability and with Runner's Dystonia it is impossible at times for me to remember how to run.

A power meter would just be a statistical thing I look at and ponder the data. That would be fun but really probably I would rather spend the money on a Gibson L5 jazz guitar. So I will put it on hold for the moment. I don't need the L5 either but at least I can play it and have much fun.. I doubt anyone here has one to sell much less know what it is..............Frank set me straight he had good points.

That's why people buy these kinds of things--they're fun for them to
know this data. I would not want to tell anyone how they should spend
their disposable income even if it's not a way I would want to spend
$600 or so.

It's too bad that this technology has not come down in price to a level
that represents the actual cost of implementing it, but that may occur
at some time in the future.
:-) You can buy a pulse rate monitor for as little as $17 and it
will give a far more accurate indication of how hard you are working
than a power meter.

Well not really. Power is work over time, so a power meter will tell you how much work you are doing. Sure, picking nits, but both power and pulse rate are important. If you're producing 10 watts at 170 BPM, you're on death's doorstep. If you're producing 2,000 watts at 170 BPM, you're a pro level sprinter.

-- Jay Beattie.
Your definition for 'Power" is a bit nebulas. Example: 1 watt = one
joule per second. Usually stated as "Power is the rate with respect to
time at which work is done".

But more important it doesn't give you any indication of what percent
of the power that you are capable of is being generated, which the
heart rate monitor does tell you.

By the way, you need to factor age into that equation as the older you
are the lower the maximum heart rate :-) 220 - 50 years = 170, 220 -
60 = 160, etc.
My definition of power as work over time is short hand for the definition used in physics: https://tinyurl.com/yupbyh4e My point was just that knowing one's pulse doesn't really say a lot in terms of the amount of work being performed by that person. It gives you a lot of other information and is a helpful training tool in other ways, but a $17 heart rate monitor is not going to give you power information or replace a power meter.

Everyone should get a Stages power meter even if they don't need one. They're so cheap, you could use the arm as a stir stick, and it would strengthen the economy.

-- Jay Beattie.
Just looking at the figure of your HR and/or power doesn't do the trick. You have to interpret the data to turn them into information. Here is the data of todays group ride. For me it was an easy ride were I only pushed myself during about 15 minutes and dropped half of the group just before the coffee stop. After the coffee stop it was a social ride again.

https://photos.app.goo.gl/LSvLHhVB8B7Ye3Ws7

Besides a delay there is a very good correlation between the heart rate and power. The ratio between them however changes with in- or decreasing fitness and thats is what your are interested in.

Lou
Lou, you are quite right that you CAN derive power input any number of ways but a power meter makes it simple. But does that make it necessary for the overwhelming number of riders?

On 5/2/2021 8:57 AM, jbeattie wrote:
On Saturday, May 1, 2021 at 6:56:13 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
On Sat, 1 May 2021 18:20:59 -0700 (PDT), jbeattie
wrote:
On Saturday, May 1, 2021 at 5:46:48 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
On Sat, 1 May 2021 07:46:12 -0700, sms
wrote:
On 5/1/2021 7:42 AM, Mark cleary wrote:

snip

Well I think I have figured this out. I don't need a power meter as I am in shape and know how to get in shape or stay in shape. I don't race at all and I am getting slower although the decline is something I can manage. What I have not managed is my decline in running ability and with Runner's Dystonia it is impossible at times for me to remember how to run.

A power meter would just be a statistical thing I look at and ponder the data. That would be fun but really probably I would rather spend the money on a Gibson L5 jazz guitar. So I will put it on hold for the moment. I don't need the L5 either but at least I can play it and have much fun. I doubt anyone here has one to sell much less know what it is.............Frank set me straight he had good points.

That's why people buy these kinds of things--they're fun for them to
know this data. I would not want to tell anyone how they should spend
their disposable income even if it's not a way I would want to spend
$600 or so.

It's too bad that this technology has not come down in price to a level
that represents the actual cost of implementing it, but that may occur
at some time in the future.
:-) You can buy a pulse rate monitor for as little as $17 and it
will give a far more accurate indication of how hard you are working
than a power meter.

Well not really. Power is work over time, so a power meter will tell you how much work you are doing. Sure, picking nits, but both power and pulse rate are important. If you're producing 10 watts at 170 BPM, you're on death's doorstep. If you're producing 2,000 watts at 170 BPM, you're a pro level sprinter.

-- Jay Beattie.
Your definition for 'Power" is a bit nebulas. Example: 1 watt = one
joule per second. Usually stated as "Power is the rate with respect to
time at which work is done".

But more important it doesn't give you any indication of what percent
of the power that you are capable of is being generated, which the
heart rate monitor does tell you.

By the way, you need to factor age into that equation as the older you
are the lower the maximum heart rate :-) 220 - 50 years = 170, 220 -
60 = 160, etc.

My definition of power as work over time is short hand for the definition used in physics: https://tinyurl.com/yupbyh4e My point was just that knowing one's pulse doesn't really say a lot in terms of the amount of work being performed by that person. It gives you a lot of other information and is a helpful training tool in other ways, but a $17 heart rate monitor is not going to give you power information or replace a power meter.

Everyone should get a Stages power meter even if they don't need one. They're so cheap, you could use the arm as a stir stick, and it would strengthen the economy.

-- Jay Beattie.

Besides, the purchase of the larger coffee cup, necessitated by that big
stir stick, will also strengthen the ceramic housewares industry.

Oh, and the 220-age formula is at best a wild guess for most humans;
ISTR the *typical* error size as 9-11 BPM (sometimes more, sometimes
less). The author of the paper from which the formula originated is
quoted as saying that the formula was never intended for medical use.

Mark J.

On Sun, 2 May 2021 08:57:24 -0700 (PDT), jbeattie
wrote:

On Saturday, May 1, 2021 at 6:56:13 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
On Sat, 1 May 2021 18:20:59 -0700 (PDT), jbeattie
wrote:
On Saturday, May 1, 2021 at 5:46:48 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
On Sat, 1 May 2021 07:46:12 -0700, sms
wrote:
On 5/1/2021 7:42 AM, Mark cleary wrote:

snip

Well I think I have figured this out. I don't need a power meter as I am in shape and know how to get in shape or stay in shape. I don't race at all and I am getting slower although the decline is something I can manage. What I have not managed is my decline in running ability and with Runner's Dystonia it is impossible at times for me to remember how to run.

A power meter would just be a statistical thing I look at and ponder the data. That would be fun but really probably I would rather spend the money on a Gibson L5 jazz guitar. So I will put it on hold for the moment. I don't need the L5 either but at least I can play it and have much fun. I doubt anyone here has one to sell much less know what it is.............Frank set me straight he had good points.

That's why people buy these kinds of things--they're fun for them to
know this data. I would not want to tell anyone how they should spend
their disposable income even if it's not a way I would want to spend
$600 or so.

It's too bad that this technology has not come down in price to a level
that represents the actual cost of implementing it, but that may occur
at some time in the future.
:-) You can buy a pulse rate monitor for as little as $17 and it
will give a far more accurate indication of how hard you are working
than a power meter.

Well not really. Power is work over time, so a power meter will tell you how much work you are doing. Sure, picking nits, but both power and pulse rate are important. If you're producing 10 watts at 170 BPM, you're on death's doorstep. If you're producing 2,000 watts at 170 BPM, you're a pro level sprinter.

-- Jay Beattie.
Your definition for 'Power" is a bit nebulas. Example: 1 watt = one
joule per second. Usually stated as "Power is the rate with respect to
time at which work is done".

But more important it doesn't give you any indication of what percent
of the power that you are capable of is being generated, which the
heart rate monitor does tell you.

By the way, you need to factor age into that equation as the older you
are the lower the maximum heart rate :-) 220 - 50 years = 170, 220 -
60 = 160, etc.

My definition of power as work over time is short hand for the definition used in physics: https://tinyurl.com/yupbyh4e My point was just that knowing one's pulse doesn't really say a lot in terms of the amount of work being performed by that person. It gives you a lot of other information and is a helpful training tool in other ways, but a $17 heart rate monitor is not going to give you power information or replace a power meter.

My point was, and is, that your torque reading times RPM doesn't give
you any indication of what percent of your ability to produce power -
to use your term - that you are expending. Which is why VO2max is the
usual test of "fitness" rather then torque and a cheap and dirty
method of measuring VO2max is by measuring pulse rate.

Everyone should get a Stages power meter even if they don't need one. They're so cheap, you could use the arm as a stir stick, and it would strengthen the economy.

-- Jay Beattie.

--
Cheers,

John B.

On Sun, 2 May 2021 11:24:14 -0700, "Mark J."
wrote:

On 5/2/2021 8:57 AM, jbeattie wrote:
On Saturday, May 1, 2021 at 6:56:13 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
On Sat, 1 May 2021 18:20:59 -0700 (PDT), jbeattie
wrote:
On Saturday, May 1, 2021 at 5:46:48 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
On Sat, 1 May 2021 07:46:12 -0700, sms
wrote:
On 5/1/2021 7:42 AM, Mark cleary wrote:

snip

Well I think I have figured this out. I don't need a power meter as I am in shape and know how to get in shape or stay in shape. I don't race at all and I am getting slower although the decline is something I can manage. What I have not managed is my decline in running ability and with Runner's Dystonia it is impossible at times for me to remember how to run.

A power meter would just be a statistical thing I look at and ponder the data. That would be fun but really probably I would rather spend the money on a Gibson L5 jazz guitar. So I will put it on hold for the moment. I don't need the L5 either but at least I can play it and have much fun. I doubt anyone here has one to sell much less know what it is.............Frank set me straight he had good points.

That's why people buy these kinds of things--they're fun for them to
know this data. I would not want to tell anyone how they should spend
their disposable income even if it's not a way I would want to spend
$600 or so.

It's too bad that this technology has not come down in price to a level
that represents the actual cost of implementing it, but that may occur
at some time in the future.
:-) You can buy a pulse rate monitor for as little as $17 and it
will give a far more accurate indication of how hard you are working
than a power meter.

Well not really. Power is work over time, so a power meter will tell you how much work you are doing. Sure, picking nits, but both power and pulse rate are important. If you're producing 10 watts at 170 BPM, you're on death's doorstep. If you're producing 2,000 watts at 170 BPM, you're a pro level sprinter.

-- Jay Beattie.
Your definition for 'Power" is a bit nebulas. Example: 1 watt = one
joule per second. Usually stated as "Power is the rate with respect to
time at which work is done".

But more important it doesn't give you any indication of what percent
of the power that you are capable of is being generated, which the
heart rate monitor does tell you.

By the way, you need to factor age into that equation as the older you
are the lower the maximum heart rate :-) 220 - 50 years = 170, 220 -
60 = 160, etc.

My definition of power as work over time is short hand for the definition used in physics: https://tinyurl.com/yupbyh4e My point was just that knowing one's pulse doesn't really say a lot in terms of the amount of work being performed by that person. It gives you a lot of other information and is a helpful training tool in other ways, but a $17 heart rate monitor is not going to give you power information or replace a power meter.

Everyone should get a Stages power meter even if they don't need one. They're so cheap, you could use the arm as a stir stick, and it would strengthen the economy.

-- Jay Beattie.

Besides, the purchase of the larger coffee cup, necessitated by that big
stir stick, will also strengthen the ceramic housewares industry.

Oh, and the 220-age formula is at best a wild guess for most humans;
ISTR the *typical* error size as 9-11 BPM (sometimes more, sometimes
less). The author of the paper from which the formula originated is
quoted as saying that the formula was never intended for medical use.

Mark J.

You might want to read
https://www.researchgate.net/publica...0-age_equation

The first reference to heart rate measurements seems have been
developed by Robinson in 1938. His data produced the equation
HRmax=212-0.77(age).
Subsequently it appears that everyone and his dog has come up with a
formula.

One study of HRmax data for 225 subjects (115 male, 110 female) for
ages 4 to 33 years show that 40% VOmax occurred at 63% of actual
maximum heart rate and at 40% of the calculated. 60% VOmax at 76%
actual and 6-% calculated and 90% VOmax at 95% actual and 90%
calculated.

The known univariate prediction equations for maximal heart rate. seem
to range from a high of 226-age to a low of 189-0.56 age or in numbers
226-50=176 to 189-(60x,56) = 155.4 (220 - 60=160)
--
Cheers,

John B.

Mark J. wrote:
On 5/2/2021 8:57 AM, jbeattie wrote:
On Saturday, May 1, 2021 at 6:56:13 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
On Sat, 1 May 2021 18:20:59 -0700 (PDT), jbeattie
wrote:
On Saturday, May 1, 2021 at 5:46:48 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
On Sat, 1 May 2021 07:46:12 -0700, sms
wrote:
On 5/1/2021 7:42 AM, Mark cleary wrote:

snip

Well I think I have figured this out. I don't need a power meter as
I am in shape and know how to get in shape or stay in shape. I
don't race at all and I am getting slower although the decline is
something I can manage. What I have not managed is my decline in
running ability and with Runner's Dystonia it is impossible at
times for me to remember how to run.

A power meter would just be a statistical thing I look at and
ponder the data. That would be fun but really probably I would
rather spend the money on a Gibson L5 jazz guitar. So I will put it
on hold for the moment. I don't need the L5 either but at least I
can play it and have much fun. I doubt anyone here has one to sell
much less know what it is.............Frank set me straight he had good points.

That's why people buy these kinds of things--they're fun for them to
know this data. I would not want to tell anyone how they should spend
their disposable income even if it's not a way I would want to spend
$600 or so.

It's too bad that this technology has not come down in price to a level
that represents the actual cost of implementing it, but that may occur
at some time in the future.
:-) You can buy a pulse rate monitor for as little as $17 and it
will give a far more accurate indication of how hard you are working
than a power meter.

Well not really. Power is work over time, so a power meter will tell
you how much work you are doing. Sure, picking nits, but both power
and pulse rate are important. If you're producing 10 watts at 170 BPM,
you're on death's doorstep. If you're producing 2,000 watts at 170
BPM, you're a pro level sprinter.

-- Jay Beattie.
Your definition for 'Power" is a bit nebulas. Example: 1 watt = one
joule per second. Usually stated as "Power is the rate with respect to
time at which work is done".

But more important it doesn't give you any indication of what percent
of the power that you are capable of is being generated, which the
heart rate monitor does tell you.

By the way, you need to factor age into that equation as the older you
are the lower the maximum heart rate :-) 220 - 50 years = 170, 220 -
60 = 160, etc.

My definition of power as work over time is short hand for the
definition used in physics: https://tinyurl.com/yupbyh4e My point was
just that knowing one's pulse doesn't really say a lot in terms of the
amount of work being performed by that person. It gives you a lot of
other information and is a helpful training tool in other ways, but a
$17 heart rate monitor is not going to give you power information or
replace a power meter.

Everyone should get a Stages power meter even if they don't need one.
They're so cheap, you could use the arm as a stir stick, and it would
strengthen the economy.

-- Jay Beattie.

Besides, the purchase of the larger coffee cup, necessitated by that big
stir stick, will also strengthen the ceramic housewares industry.

Oh, and the 220-age formula is at best a wild guess for most humans;
ISTR the *typical* error size as 9-11 BPM (sometimes more, sometimes
less). The author of the paper from which the formula originated is
quoted as saying that the formula was never intended for medical use.

Mark J.


Yup. Your maximum heart rate can be easily determined by working all out
and seeing what the highest heart rate you achieved was. I recall that mine
used to be above the 220 - age formula, but now it’s a bit under that (or
more likely I don’t ride as close to the “vomit zone� as I used to.

On 5/2/2021 6:51 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 2 May 2021 11:24:14 -0700, "Mark J."
wrote:

On 5/2/2021 8:57 AM, jbeattie wrote:
On Saturday, May 1, 2021 at 6:56:13 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
On Sat, 1 May 2021 18:20:59 -0700 (PDT), jbeattie
wrote:
On Saturday, May 1, 2021 at 5:46:48 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
On Sat, 1 May 2021 07:46:12 -0700, sms
wrote:
On 5/1/2021 7:42 AM, Mark cleary wrote:

snip

Well I think I have figured this out. I don't need a power meter as I am in shape and know how to get in shape or stay in shape. I don't race at all and I am getting slower although the decline is something I can manage. What I have not managed is my decline in running ability and with Runner's Dystonia it is impossible at times for me to remember how to run.

A power meter would just be a statistical thing I look at and ponder the data. That would be fun but really probably I would rather spend the money on a Gibson L5 jazz guitar. So I will put it on hold for the moment. I don't need the L5 either but at least I can play it and have much fun. I doubt anyone here has one to sell much less know what it is.............Frank set me straight he had good points.

That's why people buy these kinds of things--they're fun for them to
know this data. I would not want to tell anyone how they should spend
their disposable income even if it's not a way I would want to spend
$600 or so.

It's too bad that this technology has not come down in price to a level
that represents the actual cost of implementing it, but that may occur
at some time in the future.
:-) You can buy a pulse rate monitor for as little as $17 and it
will give a far more accurate indication of how hard you are working
than a power meter.

Well not really. Power is work over time, so a power meter will tell you how much work you are doing. Sure, picking nits, but both power and pulse rate are important. If you're producing 10 watts at 170 BPM, you're on death's doorstep. If you're producing 2,000 watts at 170 BPM, you're a pro level sprinter.

-- Jay Beattie.
Your definition for 'Power" is a bit nebulas. Example: 1 watt = one
joule per second. Usually stated as "Power is the rate with respect to
time at which work is done".

But more important it doesn't give you any indication of what percent
of the power that you are capable of is being generated, which the
heart rate monitor does tell you.

By the way, you need to factor age into that equation as the older you
are the lower the maximum heart rate :-) 220 - 50 years = 170, 220 -
60 = 160, etc.

My definition of power as work over time is short hand for the definition used in physics: https://tinyurl.com/yupbyh4e My point was just that knowing one's pulse doesn't really say a lot in terms of the amount of work being performed by that person. It gives you a lot of other information and is a helpful training tool in other ways, but a $17 heart rate monitor is not going to give you power information or replace a power meter.

Everyone should get a Stages power meter even if they don't need one. They're so cheap, you could use the arm as a stir stick, and it would strengthen the economy.

-- Jay Beattie.

Besides, the purchase of the larger coffee cup, necessitated by that big
stir stick, will also strengthen the ceramic housewares industry.

Oh, and the 220-age formula is at best a wild guess for most humans;
ISTR the *typical* error size as 9-11 BPM (sometimes more, sometimes
less). The author of the paper from which the formula originated is
quoted as saying that the formula was never intended for medical use.

Mark J.

You might want to read
https://www.researchgate.net/publica...0-age_equation

Yes, I think that's the one I read.

The first reference to heart rate measurements seems have been
developed by Robinson in 1938. His data produced the equation
HRmax=212-0.77(age).
Subsequently it appears that everyone and his dog has come up with a
formula.

Including Fox, who published the 220-age in ?1971? if my quick scan is
correct (footnote 1 in the article). But his formula required no
multiplication or decimals which are, you know, "hard." ...and a legend
was born.


One study of HRmax data for 225 subjects (115 male, 110 female) for
ages 4 to 33 years show that 40% VOmax occurred at 63% of actual
maximum heart rate and at 40% of the calculated. 60% VOmax at 76%
actual and 6-% calculated and 90% VOmax at 95% actual and 90%
calculated.

"on average," I'm sure. I'd be astonished if every single one of those
subjects fit all those percentages. Which was rather my original point.
The margin of error in these estimates is almost always much larger
than the, um, press on the subject would lead you to believe, because
people vary a lot.



The known univariate prediction equations for maximal heart rate. seem
to range from a high of 226-age to a low of 189-0.56 age or in numbers
226-50=176 to 189-(60x,56) = 155.4 (220 - 60=160)

Lots of different formulas, but the variation in formulas may or may not
fit the variation in *people* which is the central problem.

Mark J.

On 5/3/2021 12:20 AM, Mark J. wrote:
On 5/2/2021 6:51 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 2 May 2021 11:24:14 -0700, "Mark J."
wrote:

On 5/2/2021 8:57 AM, jbeattie wrote:
On Saturday, May 1, 2021 at 6:56:13 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
On Sat, 1 May 2021 18:20:59 -0700 (PDT), jbeattie
wrote:
On Saturday, May 1, 2021 at 5:46:48 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
On Sat, 1 May 2021 07:46:12 -0700, sms
wrote:
On 5/1/2021 7:42 AM, Mark cleary wrote:

snip

Well I think I have figured this out. I don't need a power
meter as I am in shape and know how to get in shape or stay in
shape. I don't race at all and I am getting slower although the
decline is something I can manage. What I have not managed is
my decline in running ability and with Runner's Dystonia it is
impossible at times for me to remember how to run.

A power meter would just be a statistical thing I look at and
ponder the data. That would be fun but really probably I would
rather spend the money on a Gibson L5 jazz guitar. So I will
put it on hold for the moment. I don't need the L5 either but
at least I can play it and have much fun. I doubt anyone here
has one to sell much less know what it is.............Frank set
me straight he had good points.

That's why people buy these kinds of things--they're fun for
them to
know this data. I would not want to tell anyone how they should
spend
their disposable income even if it's not a way I would want to
spend
$600 or so.

It's too bad that this technology has not come down in price to
a level
that represents the actual cost of implementing it, but that may
occur
at some time in the future.
:-) You can buy a pulse rate monitor for as little as $17 and it
will give a far more accurate indication of how hard you are working
than a power meter.

Well not really. Power is work over time, so a power meter will
tell you how much work you are doing. Sure, picking nits, but both
power and pulse rate are important. If you're producing 10 watts
at 170 BPM, you're on death's doorstep. If you're producing 2,000
watts at 170 BPM, you're a pro level sprinter.

-- Jay Beattie.
Your definition for 'Power" is a bit nebulas. Example: 1 watt = one
joule per second. Usually stated as "Power is the rate with respect to
time at which work is done".

But more important it doesn't give you any indication of what percent
of the power that you are capable of is being generated, which the
heart rate monitor does tell you.

By the way, you need to factor age into that equation as the older you
are the lower the maximum heart rate :-) 220 - 50 years = 170, 220 -
60 = 160, etc.

My definition of power as work over time is short hand for the
definition used in physics: https://tinyurl.com/yupbyh4eÂ*Â* My point
was just that knowing one's pulse doesn't really say a lot in terms
of the amount of work being performed by that person.Â* It gives you
a lot of other information and is a helpful training tool in other
ways, but a $17 heart rate monitor is not going to give you power
information or replace a power meter.

Everyone should get a Stages power meter even if they don't need
one.Â* They're so cheap, you could use the arm as a stir stick, and
it would strengthen the economy.

-- Jay Beattie.

Besides, the purchase of the larger coffee cup, necessitated by that big
stir stick, will also strengthen the ceramic housewares industry.

Oh, and the 220-age formula is at best a wild guess for most humans;
ISTR the *typical* error size as 9-11 BPM (sometimes more, sometimes
less).Â* The author of the paper from which the formula originated is
quoted as saying that the formula was never intended for medical use.

Mark J.

You might want to read
https://www.researchgate.net/publica...0-age_equation


Yes, I think that's the one I read.

The first reference to heart rate measurements seems have been
developed by Robinson in 1938. His data produced the equation
HRmax=212-0.77(age).
Subsequently it appears that everyone and his dog has come up with a
formula.

Including Fox, who published the 220-age in ?1971? if my quick scan is
correct (footnote 1 in the article).Â* But his formula required no
multiplication or decimals which are, you know, "hard."Â* ...and a legend
was born.


One study of HRmax data for 225 subjects (115 male, 110 female) for
ages 4 to 33 years show that 40% VOmax occurred at 63% of actual
maximum heart rate and at 40% of the calculated. 60% VOmax at 76%
actual and 6-% calculated and 90% VOmax at 95% actual and 90%
calculated.

"on average," I'm sure.Â* I'd be astonished if every single one of those
subjects fit all those percentages.Â* Which was rather my original point.
The margin of error in these estimates is almost always much larger than
the, um, press on the subject would lead you to believe, because people
vary a lot.



The known univariate prediction equations for maximal heart rate. seem
to range from a high of 226-age to a low of 189-0.56 age or in numbers
226-50=176 to 189-(60x,56) = 155.4 (220 - 60=160)

Lots of different formulas, but the variation in formulas may or may not
fit the variation in *people* which is the central problem.

Coincidentally, some of this was mentioned in today's Yahoo Lifestyle
article from _Buycycling_ magazine.

https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/burn...194200200.html


--
- Frank Krygowski

On Monday, May 3, 2021 at 6:56:28 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/3/2021 12:20 AM, Mark J. wrote:
On 5/2/2021 6:51 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 2 May 2021 11:24:14 -0700, "Mark J."
wrote:

On 5/2/2021 8:57 AM, jbeattie wrote:
On Saturday, May 1, 2021 at 6:56:13 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
On Sat, 1 May 2021 18:20:59 -0700 (PDT), jbeattie
wrote:
On Saturday, May 1, 2021 at 5:46:48 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
On Sat, 1 May 2021 07:46:12 -0700, sms
wrote:
On 5/1/2021 7:42 AM, Mark cleary wrote:

snip

Well I think I have figured this out. I don't need a power
meter as I am in shape and know how to get in shape or stay in
shape. I don't race at all and I am getting slower although the
decline is something I can manage. What I have not managed is
my decline in running ability and with Runner's Dystonia it is
impossible at times for me to remember how to run.

A power meter would just be a statistical thing I look at and
ponder the data. That would be fun but really probably I would
rather spend the money on a Gibson L5 jazz guitar. So I will
put it on hold for the moment. I don't need the L5 either but
at least I can play it and have much fun. I doubt anyone here
has one to sell much less know what it is.............Frank set
me straight he had good points.

That's why people buy these kinds of things--they're fun for
them to
know this data. I would not want to tell anyone how they should
spend
their disposable income even if it's not a way I would want to
spend
$600 or so.

It's too bad that this technology has not come down in price to
a level
that represents the actual cost of implementing it, but that may
occur
at some time in the future.
:-) You can buy a pulse rate monitor for as little as $17 and it
will give a far more accurate indication of how hard you are working
than a power meter.

Well not really. Power is work over time, so a power meter will
tell you how much work you are doing. Sure, picking nits, but both
power and pulse rate are important. If you're producing 10 watts
at 170 BPM, you're on death's doorstep. If you're producing 2,000
watts at 170 BPM, you're a pro level sprinter.

-- Jay Beattie.
Your definition for 'Power" is a bit nebulas. Example: 1 watt = one
joule per second. Usually stated as "Power is the rate with respect to
time at which work is done".

But more important it doesn't give you any indication of what percent
of the power that you are capable of is being generated, which the
heart rate monitor does tell you.

By the way, you need to factor age into that equation as the older you
are the lower the maximum heart rate :-) 220 - 50 years = 170, 220 -
60 = 160, etc.

My definition of power as work over time is short hand for the
definition used in physics: https://tinyurl.com/yupbyh4e My point
was just that knowing one's pulse doesn't really say a lot in terms
of the amount of work being performed by that person. It gives you
a lot of other information and is a helpful training tool in other
ways, but a $17 heart rate monitor is not going to give you power
information or replace a power meter.

Everyone should get a Stages power meter even if they don't need
one. They're so cheap, you could use the arm as a stir stick, and
it would strengthen the economy.

-- Jay Beattie.

Besides, the purchase of the larger coffee cup, necessitated by that big
stir stick, will also strengthen the ceramic housewares industry.

Oh, and the 220-age formula is at best a wild guess for most humans;
ISTR the *typical* error size as 9-11 BPM (sometimes more, sometimes
less). The author of the paper from which the formula originated is
quoted as saying that the formula was never intended for medical use.

Mark J.

You might want to read
https://www.researchgate.net/publica...0-age_equation


Yes, I think that's the one I read.

The first reference to heart rate measurements seems have been
developed by Robinson in 1938. His data produced the equation
HRmax=212-0.77(age).
Subsequently it appears that everyone and his dog has come up with a
formula.

Including Fox, who published the 220-age in ?1971? if my quick scan is
correct (footnote 1 in the article). But his formula required no
multiplication or decimals which are, you know, "hard." ...and a legend
was born.


One study of HRmax data for 225 subjects (115 male, 110 female) for
ages 4 to 33 years show that 40% VOmax occurred at 63% of actual
maximum heart rate and at 40% of the calculated. 60% VOmax at 76%
actual and 6-% calculated and 90% VOmax at 95% actual and 90%
calculated.

"on average," I'm sure. I'd be astonished if every single one of those
subjects fit all those percentages. Which was rather my original point.
The margin of error in these estimates is almost always much larger than
the, um, press on the subject would lead you to believe, because people
vary a lot.



The known univariate prediction equations for maximal heart rate. seem
to range from a high of 226-age to a low of 189-0.56 age or in numbers
226-50=176 to 189-(60x,56) = 155.4 (220 - 60=160)

Lots of different formulas, but the variation in formulas may or may not
fit the variation in *people* which is the central problem.
Coincidentally, some of this was mentioned in today's Yahoo Lifestyle
article from _Buycycling_ magazine.

https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/burn...194200200.html

Most people eat more at a hamburger stand than they burn off in a hard 25 mile ride.

Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/3/2021 12:20 AM, Mark J. wrote:
On 5/2/2021 6:51 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 2 May 2021 11:24:14 -0700, "Mark J."
wrote:

On 5/2/2021 8:57 AM, jbeattie wrote:
On Saturday, May 1, 2021 at 6:56:13 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
On Sat, 1 May 2021 18:20:59 -0700 (PDT), jbeattie
wrote:
On Saturday, May 1, 2021 at 5:46:48 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
On Sat, 1 May 2021 07:46:12 -0700, sms
wrote:
On 5/1/2021 7:42 AM, Mark cleary wrote:

snip

Well I think I have figured this out. I don't need a power
meter as I am in shape and know how to get in shape or stay in
shape. I don't race at all and I am getting slower although the
decline is something I can manage. What I have not managed is
my decline in running ability and with Runner's Dystonia it is
impossible at times for me to remember how to run.

A power meter would just be a statistical thing I look at and
ponder the data. That would be fun but really probably I would
rather spend the money on a Gibson L5 jazz guitar. So I will
put it on hold for the moment. I don't need the L5 either but
at least I can play it and have much fun. I doubt anyone here
has one to sell much less know what it is.............Frank set
me straight he had good points.

That's why people buy these kinds of things--they're fun for
them to
know this data. I would not want to tell anyone how they should
spend
their disposable income even if it's not a way I would want to
spend
$600 or so.

It's too bad that this technology has not come down in price to
a level
that represents the actual cost of implementing it, but that may
occur
at some time in the future.
:-) You can buy a pulse rate monitor for as little as $17 and it
will give a far more accurate indication of how hard you are working
than a power meter.

Well not really. Power is work over time, so a power meter will
tell you how much work you are doing. Sure, picking nits, but both
power and pulse rate are important. If you're producing 10 watts
at 170 BPM, you're on death's doorstep. If you're producing 2,000
watts at 170 BPM, you're a pro level sprinter.

-- Jay Beattie.
Your definition for 'Power" is a bit nebulas. Example: 1 watt = one
joule per second. Usually stated as "Power is the rate with respect to
time at which work is done".

But more important it doesn't give you any indication of what percent
of the power that you are capable of is being generated, which the
heart rate monitor does tell you.

By the way, you need to factor age into that equation as the older you
are the lower the maximum heart rate :-) 220 - 50 years = 170, 220 -
60 = 160, etc.

My definition of power as work over time is short hand for the
definition used in physics: https://tinyurl.com/yupbyh4eÂ*Â* My point
was just that knowing one's pulse doesn't really say a lot in terms
of the amount of work being performed by that person.Â* It gives you
a lot of other information and is a helpful training tool in other
ways, but a $17 heart rate monitor is not going to give you power
information or replace a power meter.

Everyone should get a Stages power meter even if they don't need
one.Â* They're so cheap, you could use the arm as a stir stick, and
it would strengthen the economy.

-- Jay Beattie.

Besides, the purchase of the larger coffee cup, necessitated by that big
stir stick, will also strengthen the ceramic housewares industry.

Oh, and the 220-age formula is at best a wild guess for most humans;
ISTR the *typical* error size as 9-11 BPM (sometimes more, sometimes
less).Â* The author of the paper from which the formula originated is
quoted as saying that the formula was never intended for medical use.

Mark J.

You might want to read
https://www.researchgate.net/publica...0-age_equation



Yes, I think that's the one I read.

The first reference to heart rate measurements seems have been
developed by Robinson in 1938. His data produced the equation
HRmax=212-0.77(age).
Subsequently it appears that everyone and his dog has come up with a
formula.

Including Fox, who published the 220-age in ?1971? if my quick scan is
correct (footnote 1 in the article).Â* But his formula required no
multiplication or decimals which are, you know, "hard."Â* ...and a legend
was born.


One study of HRmax data for 225 subjects (115 male, 110 female) for
ages 4 to 33 years show that 40% VOmax occurred at 63% of actual
maximum heart rate and at 40% of the calculated. 60% VOmax at 76%
actual and 6-% calculated and 90% VOmax at 95% actual and 90%
calculated.

"on average," I'm sure.Â* I'd be astonished if every single one of those
subjects fit all those percentages.Â* Which was rather my original point.
The margin of error in these estimates is almost always much larger than
the, um, press on the subject would lead you to believe, because people
vary a lot.



The known univariate prediction equations for maximal heart rate. seem
to range from a high of 226-age to a low of 189-0.56 age or in numbers
226-50=176 to 189-(60x,56) = 155.4 (220 - 60=160)

Lots of different formulas, but the variation in formulas may or may not
fit the variation in *people* which is the central problem.

Coincidentally, some of this was mentioned in today's Yahoo Lifestyle
article from _Buycycling_ magazine.

https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/burn...194200200.html



Interesting. At one point in the article it says that “the fitter you are,
the more efficient you are, and the less energy/fewer calories you use when
you ride at a given pace. �. However, later on it says that kJ and KCal
track at a 1:1 ratio (the assumed 25% efficiency of human muscles
offsetting the 4.3 Cal/J conversion). However, the energy required to ride
a certain speed is constant, based on the physics of the situation. Unless
the author is stating that as one gets fitter, one loses weight, buys a
bike with lower rolling resistance and assumes a position with lower CdA,
I’m not sure how to reconcile those two statements.

On 5/4/2021 10:23 AM, Ralph Barone wrote:
Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/3/2021 12:20 AM, Mark J. wrote:
On 5/2/2021 6:51 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 2 May 2021 11:24:14 -0700, "Mark J."
wrote:

On 5/2/2021 8:57 AM, jbeattie wrote:
On Saturday, May 1, 2021 at 6:56:13 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
On Sat, 1 May 2021 18:20:59 -0700 (PDT), jbeattie
wrote:
On Saturday, May 1, 2021 at 5:46:48 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
On Sat, 1 May 2021 07:46:12 -0700, sms
wrote:
On 5/1/2021 7:42 AM, Mark cleary wrote:

snip

Well I think I have figured this out. I don't need a power
meter as I am in shape and know how to get in shape or stay in
shape. I don't race at all and I am getting slower although the
decline is something I can manage. What I have not managed is
my decline in running ability and with Runner's Dystonia it is
impossible at times for me to remember how to run.

A power meter would just be a statistical thing I look at and
ponder the data. That would be fun but really probably I would
rather spend the money on a Gibson L5 jazz guitar. So I will
put it on hold for the moment. I don't need the L5 either but
at least I can play it and have much fun. I doubt anyone here
has one to sell much less know what it is.............Frank set
me straight he had good points.

That's why people buy these kinds of things--they're fun for
them to
know this data. I would not want to tell anyone how they should
spend
their disposable income even if it's not a way I would want to
spend
$600 or so.

It's too bad that this technology has not come down in price to
a level
that represents the actual cost of implementing it, but that may
occur
at some time in the future.
:-) You can buy a pulse rate monitor for as little as $17 and it
will give a far more accurate indication of how hard you are working
than a power meter.

Well not really. Power is work over time, so a power meter will
tell you how much work you are doing. Sure, picking nits, but both
power and pulse rate are important. If you're producing 10 watts
at 170 BPM, you're on death's doorstep. If you're producing 2,000
watts at 170 BPM, you're a pro level sprinter.

-- Jay Beattie.
Your definition for 'Power" is a bit nebulas. Example: 1 watt = one
joule per second. Usually stated as "Power is the rate with respect to
time at which work is done".

But more important it doesn't give you any indication of what percent
of the power that you are capable of is being generated, which the
heart rate monitor does tell you.

By the way, you need to factor age into that equation as the older you
are the lower the maximum heart rate :-) 220 - 50 years = 170, 220 -
60 = 160, etc.

My definition of power as work over time is short hand for the
definition used in physics: https://tinyurl.com/yupbyh4eÂ*Â* My point
was just that knowing one's pulse doesn't really say a lot in terms
of the amount of work being performed by that person.Â* It gives you
a lot of other information and is a helpful training tool in other
ways, but a $17 heart rate monitor is not going to give you power
information or replace a power meter.

Everyone should get a Stages power meter even if they don't need
one.Â* They're so cheap, you could use the arm as a stir stick, and
it would strengthen the economy.

-- Jay Beattie.

Besides, the purchase of the larger coffee cup, necessitated by that big
stir stick, will also strengthen the ceramic housewares industry.

Oh, and the 220-age formula is at best a wild guess for most humans;
ISTR the *typical* error size as 9-11 BPM (sometimes more, sometimes
less).Â* The author of the paper from which the formula originated is
quoted as saying that the formula was never intended for medical use.

Mark J.

You might want to read
https://www.researchgate.net/publica...0-age_equation



Yes, I think that's the one I read.

The first reference to heart rate measurements seems have been
developed by Robinson in 1938. His data produced the equation
HRmax=212-0.77(age).
Subsequently it appears that everyone and his dog has come up with a
formula.

Including Fox, who published the 220-age in ?1971? if my quick scan is
correct (footnote 1 in the article).Â* But his formula required no
multiplication or decimals which are, you know, "hard."Â* ...and a legend
was born.


One study of HRmax data for 225 subjects (115 male, 110 female) for
ages 4 to 33 years show that 40% VOmax occurred at 63% of actual
maximum heart rate and at 40% of the calculated. 60% VOmax at 76%
actual and 6-% calculated and 90% VOmax at 95% actual and 90%
calculated.

"on average," I'm sure.Â* I'd be astonished if every single one of those
subjects fit all those percentages.Â* Which was rather my original point.
The margin of error in these estimates is almost always much larger than
the, um, press on the subject would lead you to believe, because people
vary a lot.



The known univariate prediction equations for maximal heart rate. seem
to range from a high of 226-age to a low of 189-0.56 age or in numbers
226-50=176 to 189-(60x,56) = 155.4 (220 - 60=160)

Lots of different formulas, but the variation in formulas may or may not
fit the variation in *people* which is the central problem.

Coincidentally, some of this was mentioned in today's Yahoo Lifestyle
article from _Buycycling_ magazine.

https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/burn...194200200.html



Interesting. At one point in the article it says that “the fitter you are,
the more efficient you are, and the less energy/fewer calories you use when
you ride at a given pace. �. However, later on it says that kJ and KCal
track at a 1:1 ratio (the assumed 25% efficiency of human muscles
offsetting the 4.3 Cal/J conversion). However, the energy required to ride
a certain speed is constant, based on the physics of the situation. Unless
the author is stating that as one gets fitter, one loses weight, buys a
bike with lower rolling resistance and assumes a position with lower CdA,
I’m not sure how to reconcile those two statements.

I assume one's metabolic efficiency for a specific activity (in this
case, bicycling) can improve with practice. It might be explained at
least in part by better coordination, so less firing of non-essential
muscles.

A few months ago there was a Nova program on PBS focusing on fat. One
takeaway was that weight gain or loss is way more complicated than
simply "calories input vs. exercise."

I think it was that show that noted that hunter gatherers with extremely
active lifestyles don't require any more calories than sedentary people.
One way or another, efficiency does change with training.

--
- Frank Krygowski