Data Overload

Following the last article on cardiac arrhythmias, a reader wrote in with a question which I think many recreational athletes may also harbor. I thought it would be helpful to answer it as a mini topic. Okay, maybe not so mini.

"...do you think a weekend warrior like me should invest the $150 or so to have a LT and fuel efficiency test? I don't really compete, but am curious about training heart rates. I just use general guidelines and a monitor. I am also not worried at all that I am overdoing it! Your opinion is respected and appreciated." - Ralph

Ralph,

When I was in college years ago, I worked in a human performance lab as a graduate assistant. I had unlimited access to VO2 and lactate testing. Many of my friends came in and went through the drills. It was pure academic curiosity for me but also gave the athletes information relevant to how they stacked up to the best in their sport. There is a lot of data out there on national team and elite-level athletes and what kind of numbers these individuals should demonstrate when testing in order to compete at that level. The Eastern Block countries, of course, were expert in testing young athletes and determining who had what it took to perform at a high level.  My experience with all that testing confirmed what I had read about aerobic power and competitive outcomes in endurance sports.

Now, arguably, most of the guys I tested were already successful. But seeing their numbers was revealing. There is simply no getting around the fact that you need burly oxygen consumption numbers to do well in an endurance sport like cycling. No argument. No amount of Hollywood desire is going to get you up that climb with the leaders unless you can burn through it physiologically. The intangibles like desire matter only when all else is equal.

Now, I realize that VO2 max is only one performance parameter. Lactate threshold (LT) is another measurable quality that is very popular in the endurance sports literature right now. Many consider it to be just as valuable as sheer oxygen consumption for predicting performance in these sports. An athlete with a slightly lower VO2 max but a high LT may perform as well or better than another athlete with a higher oxygen consumption but a lower LT. Another important point here is that while VO2 max is relatively untrainable after a couple of months of hard conditioning, lactate threshold can continue to be coaxed upward with intelligent programming for much longer. Also, while degradation of VO2 max is unavoidable with aging, much of our performance can be maintained with proper attention to lactate threshold training.

So, is it really necessary for athletes to have this testing? Well, I guess it depends upon what and why you want to know. Back in 1996 I had the pleasure of coaching a young Tyler Farrar. His talent was obvious right from the start and he was the ideal pupil, absorbing everything I said and quickly out-growing whatever I could offer him in terms of guidance. During those formative years, however, another coach wanted to know his "numbers". We set up a VO2 max test at the local medical clinic. I spent some time with Tyler talking about how the outcome of the test could impact his expectations. "What if I suck?", or something to that effect, was his reasonable question. He was about to embark with the junior national team and did not want anything to get in his way. Knowing my numbers and seeing how he performed next to me on dozens of training rides led me not to be overly concerned. Still, I had to reassure him that pure aerobic power was not the end-all test. Also, the testing facility was not my first choice as they did not perform this type of testing too often. 

I don't recall the exact number he blew but it was not bad. Seems to me it was a bit lower than I thought it was going to be. Another test conducted later at a better facility was more in line to what I expected. I believe there is quite a bit of variability from test to test and testing device to device due to a variety of technical factors. These may explain Tyler's lower numbers during his first bout. A facility that performs many tests conducted by highly qualified exercise physiologists is probably a safer bet when it comes to reliability. Since Tyler's early days, he has been poked and prodded by sports scientists many times and has confirmed his talent both in the lab and on the Pro Tour in Europe.

So, for someone like a professional cyclist, physiologic testing has it's place. The lactate numbers help guide coaches through appropriate training intensity recommendations. They also help evaluate the effectiveness of the athlete's training. For the common man, this same benefit can be had, for a price. The problem lies with what you do once you have adapted to the training stimulus. Now, the old data is less relevant and new information must be obtained through further testing. Most individuals just don't have access to the resources to make optimal use of this highly scientific training technique.

Then, the question is, why bother in the first place? Well, many of us just want to know how we stack up. Were we the next Lance Armstrong but were cheated from glory because during a mindless, sweaty gropefest in the back of dad's station wagon, we pushed instead of pulled and now have to grind away 9 to 5 to keep little Scooter junior in Huggies? As I stated earlier, these tests can give you an idea of how you rank in the lucky sperm club. Alternatively, some athletes are drawn to heart rate-based training regimes. If you use one of the popular formulas to determine your maximum heart rate, you are bound to incur a potentially significant amount of error. Performing a maximal test, on the other hand, will eliminate that error and give you an accurate starting point for all other training zones.

Of course, that begs the question as to whether you should be engaging in that type of training at all. Several individuals have made a decent living selling heart rate-oriented training protocols to athletes. Dr. Conconi achieved a modest amount of fame and fortune in the 1980's training Francesco Moser with HR-based methods leading up to Moser's world hour mark. Of course, Moser's success was probably due as much to the magnificent pharmacological interventions as the way he trained!

More recently, Chris Carmichael has made a fortune aligning himself with Lance Armstrong and then selling a HR-based program to the masses. I have no doubt that he has an intimate relationship with the company that produces Polar Heart Rate Monitors, as well. Can you say, "conflict of interest?" Personally, I have played with monitors over the years but really have no use for them beyond academic curiosity when doing a maximal test.

Now, I don't want to go off on a rant here but what the hell is it with cyclists and data-recording technology? First it was the speedometer/odometer; then the heart rate monitors and now it's the damn watt meters. Holy crap! You thought the HR monitors were expensive. Wait until you price out a Powertap or a SRM. Astronomical! The handlebars of these riders look like the cockpit of a jet fighter with all the stupid monitors attached. And now all these book writers and program developers would have you believe that success will elude you if you don't step up for one or more of these gizmos. Whatever happened to just paying attention to your body? Guys trained for centuries this way. It's really not that mysterious. Go easy, go hard, eat, sleep...duh! WTF?!

I think all this fascination with numbers reflects just who gets into these sports. They're all flipping control freaks! Gotta win! Can't get fat! How many watts? Am I in Zone 2 or 4? Slow down, speed up! Am I in my fat burning zone? Shit, it makes me insane!

I once guided a rich executive on Aconcagua, the highest peak in South America. He had read Mark Twight's Extreme Alpinism and became familiar with heart rate training zones. His personal trainer "helped" him with this leading up to the trip. Like most successful businessmen, he was a control freak, obsessing about his numbers everyday. As we approached summit day, getting near 19,000 feet at our high camp, I couldn't take it anymore. I told him that the stupid training zones were irrelevant up there. Too many other physiological variables at that altitude to count on anything he learned at sea level.  He was going to have to "get out of his zone" to make the summit. I took the damn monitor away from him! He nearly cracked at the thought. Not sure he ever noticed the view during the days before that looking at his monitor all the time.

Coincidentally, I read a piece on Cycling News today about Rory Sutherland, a solid professional rider still competing. He abandoned all the technology this season and had one of his best years ever. Hmm. Interesting. Tyler Farrar is also a guy who would rather train without it. When he was with Cofidis a few years ago his SRM broke and he loved losing the distraction and training organically. For better or worse, his current employer, Garmin, pays a lot of attention to these numbers and he is currently obligated to provide them with the downloaded information. 

Now, I say all this with the following disclaimer: It takes time to learn to train instinctively. Not everyone will have the confidence that what they are doing is effective and will produce optimal results without seeing the hard data. So be it. Go buy the toys and crunch away! Fill up volumes with data. Compare year to year. Use different colored pens. Draw up some bitchin' graphs. Buy some cool software to record it with. Go freakin' apeshit! Then ask yourself, "Did I win any races, place better against my rivals, go faster in the time trials?" After all, that's what matters.

My recommendation is to use the devices for a while and see what numbers, whether heart rate or wattage, actually feel like. Get tested if it will make you feel better. Once you have an idea and have learned how much hard and easy you need, get rid of the damn things and go ride your bike! Yes, there is some science behind these programs but use it judiciously, realizing that there are too many variables day to day to squeeze ourselves into these tight "zones". Relax, pay attention, do way more easy miles than you think you should and do just enough hard work to get faster. How much is enough? That's up to you to find out. - Brian

Comments

[Ralph S.]

Good stuff. I've stopped using my HR monitor for everything except interval training. I've also slipped into training differently. I've become obsessed with climbing 5.12!!!! Not much cardio needed, but I still do IWTs.

So you're coming over to do some skiing around Christmas? We might head up to Hyndman basin and build an igloo (I got an Icebox igloo building tool) and do some skiing off of Cobb's south face. My email is journeyseekers (at) clearwire.net if you need an extra.

[Brian]

Certainly, training instinctively, as I suggest, is not for the neophyte or the Neanderthal. Attention must be closely paid lest we miss the subtle signs of too much or too little work. The gadgets don't eliminate the risk but, with a good coach crunching the numbers and guiding the athlete with some conservatism, most disasters can be avoided and the athlete can bang away under supervision. For those that need the data in front of them it can be fun and engaging just not vital for success for many athletes.