To Infinity and Beyond - Becoming a Better DopeyBadger (Comments Welcome)

[DopeyBadger]

I'd like to echo what others said about loud running. I don't think I'm a heavy runner, but I have to turn up the volume even on my headphones. I also think that a TV is great if that's what you're used to. I was also considering buying a frame when I first got my treadmill since I was used to running in the gym with TVs on their treadmills. I loved watching ESPN since it was pretty brainless but could be exciting. Plus those 15 min quarters always ended up being closer to 45 min. However, I didn't want to purchase another cable box for it and eventually found an ipad was sufficient (and nowadays you can stream ESPN!). But once the majority of my runs were outside with podcasts/music, it became hard for me to watch TV indoors.

Yea, hard for me to say at this point what I'll enjoy. I only use to run on a treadmill a handful of times back in 2012-2014. If I get an Apple TV (or use the Chromecast from upstairs) I'll be able to stream pretty much every channel that I currently watch on Cable upstairs. We shall see though.

Personally, I'm a terrible patient. I only see doctors for prenatal care. LOL And I feel guilty that running is self indulgent so I don't like taking up more time to address injuries. So I'm not sure what my injury is, but likely a tear vs stress fracture. I cannot keep myself away from the treadmill and this past week have started one 10 min mile a day. I did 2 miles outside today since my husband took the kids to the zoo and even taking it slow (12 min pace) I'm worried I might have aggravated my injury. Plus the baby is having a sleep regression/teething so he only naps while he's nursing! Also we've decided to move and now I have to say goodbye to my beloved running trails, which is why I ran outside today. But every time we're near the new house, I'm scoping out possible routes. There's a middle school nearby with a track, so I can't wait to do intervals on it! But between the sleep regression, injury, move and remodeling, I don't think I'll be able to run much. So I'm guessing very intermittent short runs for the next 3-4 months.

Do you think one 10 min mile a day is even worth doing? I don't think that aggravates my injury ... but who knows?

Obviously, I'm not a doctor, but think of the following possible scenario (hence just one of many ways this could turn out and I can't say how it would go). For the next 3-4 months, you're crunched for time. You run intermittently 10 min and at no point aggravate anything. Then, finally after 4 months you're finally able to return to running! You go out for your first 2-3 mile run and boom the same issue is there? But why or why? I have barely run for 10 min at a time and intermittently. Well, it's possible that you didn't make the injury worse (fracture leading to break OR low grade tear leading to high grade tear), but it's also completely possible that it never healed. So, then you're in the same place 4 months from now when you want to actually start running again full time. And now you have to take an additional 6-12 weeks off to actually let it heal. For me, I know I'd feel pretty bad at that point knowing I could have spent the time I was already crunched for time as healing time and not being forced to use the time when I actually had more time to run. It's possible that running 10 min intermittently could allow it to heal perfectly, heal imperfectly (causing a new issue sometime later like an abnormal bone growth), never heal (but not get worse), or actually get worse. If you're not willing to take more time to get a diagnosis from the doctor, at least take a little time off to let it heal. You'll thank yourself later.

 

[DopeyBadger]

Trainer - Check (Watt Master Nashbar Fluid - Free from UIL)
Sensors - Check (Wahoo Bluetooth Speed/Cadence - $70 and Schoche Rhythm + HR monitor - $80 *will work with Treadmill enabled bluetooth as well when I go down that path)
TV - Check (Phillips 1080p 40ish in - Free from MIL)
Bike - Check (4 choices from SIL or FIL - Free)
Cables - Yet to get them (Apple Lightning Digital AV and HDMI - $60)

Looks like I'll be all set come Monday/Tuesday of next week!

 

[FredtheDuck]

Looks like a solid set up. Love that you got so much of it for little to no cost!

ETA: Don't forget a fan!

 

[DopeyBadger]

Looks like a solid set up. Love that you got so much of it for little to no cost!

ETA: Don't forget a fan!

Excited to see how it all works. Thankful to the family for passing on all of their used junk to me. Now I can put it all to good use and upgrade along the way if necessary.

Fan - Check (free from basement storage)

 

[lhermiston]

Gotta love the hand me downs! Good luck testing out the new setup.

 

[Keels]

Only one week to go until the next appointment. Hoping to get the all clear on the fibula stress fracture so that I can return to running. This past week was another spent on the indoor bike.

Monday - OFF
Tuesday - 41 min biking at 123 avg HR
Wednesday - 50 min biking at 119 avg HR
Thursday - MCR (McMillan Core Routine) + 40 min biking at 103 avg HR
Friday - 40 min biking at 117 avg HR
Saturday - 50 min biking at 127 avg HR (with brief intervals up to 135-140) + MCR
Sunday - 50 min biking at 117 avg HR

Total = 270 minutes (4.5 hours) of biking (estimated 68 miles) + MCR (x2)

Being forced to bike has made me appreciate it more and has led me down the path of considering it as another exercise option (strictly indoors though).

So, I know I'm Team #NoMath ... but can you tell me how you got to the estimated mileage for your biking time? Were you tracking cadence, speed, distance, etc., or just purely going by HR? Was this at a consistent cadence or were you factoring in things like climbing and coasting, etc?

I'm just curious because that's roughly 15mph (which is where I'm at during long rides with climbing intervals on my trainer), and my HR is nowhere near that.

 

[DopeyBadger]

Gotta love the hand me downs! Good luck testing out the new setup.

Thanks!

So, I know I'm Team #NoMath ... but can you tell me how you got to the estimated mileage for your biking time? Were you tracking cadence, speed, distance, etc., or just purely going by HR? Was this at a consistent cadence or were you factoring in things like climbing and coasting, etc?

I'm just curious because that's roughly 15mph (which is where I'm at during long rides with climbing intervals on my trainer), and my HR is nowhere near that.

It's an absolute pure guess. I went through several other runners I know on strava that have a similar running profile to me (which is certainly not biking fitness) and just roughly looked at the correlation between their HR and biking pace. I also talked to my BIL to gauge his effort HR on the same trainer/resistance level. Just to get a very rough ballpark.

For me, I was doing a constant cadence/power (by effort) on almost every bike. I did only a few high/lows of effort variation. I was pushing reasonably hard on the highs for one minute and only got the HR up to 144, but that's not a very long duration. No climbing and no coasting for me.

I'm really interested to see what the numbers are. The trainer my UIL is giving me has a crude LCD on it with power, speed, etc. But I'm certainly out of my element so I'll be interested to see if I'm anywhere close to my guess. Then I'll be able to see additional data from the Zwift in-game. Then I'll have more somewhat accurate data.

 

[Keels]

Yeah - I don't (and have never) biked to HR. That's just not a stat that I found was worthwhile to me? I cycle to watts, speed, cadence and actual distance - especially outside, since I train for cycling events.

I was just curious about using HR as a baseline measurement for mileage and performance. Thanks!

 

[DopeyBadger]

Yeah - I don't (and have never) biked to HR. That's just not a stat that I found was worthwhile to me? I cycle to watts, speed, cadence and actual distance - especially outside, since I train for cycling events.

I was just curious about using HR as a baseline measurement for mileage and performance. Thanks!

It certainly makes sense why you'd use those other metrics because they're better. I was just doing the best I could with a single data point and a rough guess. I'll be interested to see if HR has any correlation to pace (or other metrics) in biking like it does for running.

 

[Miranda]

Climbing will get your heart rate up there, but I'm guessing maybe you can't do that until you get cleared from the stress fracture. I guess you could do seated climbs but not standing ones. My HR goes through the roof on the tracks during spin class with high resistance climbs.

 

[DopeyBadger]

Climbing will get your heart rate up there, but I'm guessing maybe you can't do that until you get cleared from the stress fracture. I guess you could do seated climbs but not standing ones. My HR goes through the roof on the tracks during spin class with high resistance climbs.

Oh totally agree that climbing would dramatically increase the HR. I haven't ridden a bike since I was a kid. I've never done a standing climb before (and I probably do want to wait until after get the all clear to even try). How do you do a seating climb? Is it matter of changing the resistance?

 

[Miranda]

All my cycling experience comes from a spin bike perspective, but I imagine it's the same thing on a real bike with a trainer. The seated climb parts of class, they instructor also call them power climbs, are high resistance low RPM grinds. I only know what gears I am in in terms of the spin bikes at my gym, and they likely have no relation to reality, but we usually keep the RPM somewhere between 60-80 depending on the song (the classes I take are Les Mills RPM, and they are choreographed so the RPM matches the music).

One thing that I didn't see in your list of gear that you may want to add... bike shoes! Maybe you already have some and I missed it, though. They really help a lot. When I first started spinning, I just wore old running shoes, but I quickly got a pair of bike shoes for class... I didn't spend a lot, just got some previous year on sale model of Shimano mountain bike shoes. The stiff soles and the clip in cleats really helped.

 

[DopeyBadger]

@Keels - This was my thought process as a measure of estimate for biking distance now that I'm on the computer.

For running, I've seen the following relationship between HR and Pace:



By plotting the correlation between HR and pace using set parameters (similar weather conditions, similar running terrain, similar elevation profile runs, etc.), I was able to find a relatively consistent trend line shape between HR and pace. Over time, this trendline would get lower in the graph. Thereby, I would make the assumption that one is "faster" or fitter when they can run a set pace at a lower %HRR relative to themselves. %HRR equals the following:

HRR = HRmax - HRrest
%HRR = [(HR from run) - HRrest] / HRR

In Spring 2015, at 80% HRR I could run at a ~9:30 min/mile. In April 2017, at 80% HRR I could run at a ~6:43 min/mile. Therefore, I was fitter in April 2017, then I was in Spring 2015.

In the case of a run, if I knew the average HR and the duration of the run, then I could get within a reasonable shot of the mileage covered. For instance, using the April 2017 orange line.

Let's say I ran for 60 minutes and my %HRR was 60% (for me that would be around 126 beats per min). According to the HR v Pace relationship, I would estimate that I ran an average pace around an 8:45 min/mile under similar conditions as those used to generate the graph. Since the duration of the run was 60 min, then I would estimate that I covered a distance of 6.85 miles. Plenty of assumptions, but it gets you a rough guess.

So since the only input I had from my indoor biking was HR, I looked through other Strava users bike history with similar estimated running fitness to see what their HR, distance, duration relationship was. This was under the assumption that indoor biking would show a similar relationship to that of the running relationship between HR and Pace (and thereby distance).

I'll be interested to see the correlation in biking of the other measurements as well. For running, there's a relationship between pace, cadence, and stride length of the following:



Where:

Pace = 1.0952*[(Cadence*Stride Length)^1.004]

So if someone knew pace and cadence, they could calculate stride length. Or any variation of the crew. So I wonder if watts in biking (power) is like stride length in running as a crude measure of power output (when seen in relationship with pace and cadence).

Certainly coasting adds a different level of complexity to biking. Because in running if you have zero cadence, you have zero stride length, and thus zero pace. But in biking, you could have zero cadence, but still have pace. Presumably, someone is not generating any watts either during a coast since there is no energy expenditure. Is that right? That would certainly add a level of complexity to making a relationship between HR and pace in biking. But I guess if one were to use the same "set parameters" idea you could correct for something like that. You've definitely got my wheels spinning. It certainly seems like biking can be much more complex than running.

All my cycling experience comes from a spin bike perspective, but I imagine it's the same thing on a real bike with a trainer. The seated climb parts of class, they instructor also call them power climbs, are high resistance low RPM grinds. I only know what gears I am in in terms of the spin bikes at my gym, and they likely have no relation to reality, but we usually keep the RPM somewhere between 60-80 depending on the song (the classes I take are Les Mills RPM, and they are choreographed so the RPM matches the music).

One thing that I didn't see in your list of gear that you may want to add... bike shoes! Maybe you already have some and I missed it, though. They really help a lot. When I first started spinning, I just wore old running shoes, but I quickly got a pair of bike shoes for class... I didn't spend a lot, just got some previous year on sale model of Shimano mountain bike shoes. The stiff soles and the clip in cleats really helped.

That makes sense. So they do a seating climb by increasing the resistance (which simulates increased effort needed for an uphill climb outside).

Yea, no bike shoes! Good call. I'll probably have to wait a little bit to get those to spread out the cost expenditures. Sounds like they would be helpful though.

 

[DopeyBadger]

Funny story. Steph's cousin let us know she and her college roommate are doing Disney Marathon Weekend. They're so excited to join us and the rest of the cousin's family would probably go to. Too bad we had to burst their bubble and tell them we weren't doing Marathon Weekend in 2019. Funny how the world works sometimes.

 

[FFigawi]

Certainly coasting adds a different level of complexity to biking. Because in running if you have zero cadence, you have zero stride length, and thus zero pace. But in biking, you could have zero cadence, but still have pace. Presumably, someone is not generating any watts either during a coast since there is no energy expenditure. Is that right? That would certainly add a level of complexity to making a relationship between HR and pace in biking. But I guess if one were to use the same "set parameters" idea you could correct for something like that. You've definitely got my wheels spinning. It certainly seems like biking can be much more complex than running.

Biking is both more and less complex. It's more complex in that there are more variables than in running, but less in that only one really matters - power. HR can be a proxy for level of effort and therefore power, but at the end of the day, power is key to bike training and cycling performance. Whether you're inside on a trainer or outside on the road, using a big gear and low RPM or a small one and high RPM, the end result is the same. You can only put out so much power for so long. Training with a power meter is similar to training with HR zones or pace zones when running. You measure your FTP (functional threshold power) and then base all your workouts off that number. Here are some good links for you to read up on the science of training with power.

https://www.trainingpeaks.com/blog/how-to-get-started-training-with-power/
https://www.trainingpeaks.com/blog/...the-what-why-and-how-of-the-new-wko4-ilevels/

 

[jennamfeo]

Funny story. Steph's cousin let us know she and her college roommate are doing Disney Marathon Weekend. They're so excited to join us and the rest of the cousin's family would probably go to. Too bad we had to burst their bubble and tell them we weren't doing Marathon Weekend in 2019. Funny how the world works sometimes.

I think this is a sign........

 

[DopeyBadger]

Biking is both more and less complex. It's more complex in that there are more variables than in running, but less in that only one really matters - power. HR can be a proxy for level of effort and therefore power, but at the end of the day, power is key to bike training and cycling performance. Whether you're inside on a trainer or outside on the road, using a big gear and low RPM or a small one and high RPM, the end result is the same. You can only put out so much power for so long. Training with a power meter is similar to training with HR zones or pace zones when running. You measure your FTP (functional threshold power) and then base all your workouts off that number. Here are some good links for you to read up on the science of training with power.

https://www.trainingpeaks.com/blog/how-to-get-started-training-with-power/
https://www.trainingpeaks.com/blog/...the-what-why-and-how-of-the-new-wko4-ilevels/

Thanks for the articles. I can see the parallels between running and cycling and yet the differences as well. These are very helpful. I saw that Zwift had a FTP test and was planning on trying that out once I got comfortable with the interface. It seems even more paramount as a useful tool in moving forward as %FTP seems to be a generally good basis for training plan design. Would you agree? With %FTP being similar (but not the same) as %HRR for running (with the correlation to certain paced zones based on Jack Daniels data).

I was looking into the complexity of bike fitting as well. Seems way more complicated than running shoes. Since I seem to have a choice of 4 bikes (for free and could go another route if necessary), do you think it would be smart on my part to measure the bikes to see how they would relate to my fit?

https://www.competitivecyclist.com/Store/catalog/fitCalculatorBike.jsp#results

I took some quick rough measurements and came up with this:

I think this is a sign........

Haha.... yea.... not going to happen... Chicago + CA Wedding + Treadmill = No Disney Marathon Weekend

 

[DopeyBadger]

With %FTP being similar (but not the same) as %HRR for running (with the correlation to certain paced zones based on Jack Daniels data).

I should say though that I advocate to train by pace/effort moreso than %HRR when it comes to running. So maybe my connection wasn't actually that good.

%FTP seems more like a race equivalency calculator setup. A set % of FTP is a reasonable estimate for the duration one can hold that for. Kind of like how I design running plans based on relative fitness pacing and duration. So %FTP would be a better surrogate to pace in running.

And power is like a measurement of effort. One can have low cadence/big gear and high cadence/small gear and each method could equal the same power output. And power is independent of speed. Therefore a 300W is not always equal to 15mph (made up numbers) because sometimes that includes ups, downs, and flats. But the effort needed to generate 300w is always the same? So when going uphill, downhill or flat it takes the same effort to create 300w but the speed at which you're going will fluctuate. Just like in running a uphill the effort should remain the same (not the pace) for a consistent approach to a race/training run.

Does that sound in line @FFigawi ?

 

[ZellyB]

Funny story. Steph's cousin let us know she and her college roommate are doing Disney Marathon Weekend. They're so excited to join us and the rest of the cousin's family would probably go to. Too bad we had to burst their bubble and tell them we weren't doing Marathon Weekend in 2019. Funny how the world works sometimes.

Hmmm, perhaps time to reconsider that WDW Marathon Weekend 2019, yes?

 

[FFigawi]

Thanks for the articles. I can see the parallels between running and cycling and yet the differences as well. These are very helpful. I saw that Zwift had a FTP test and was planning on trying that out once I got comfortable with the interface. It seems even more paramount as a useful tool in moving forward as %FTP seems to be a generally good basis for training plan design. Would you agree? With %FTP being similar (but not the same) as %HRR for running (with the correlation to certain paced zones based on Jack Daniels data).

I definitely agree. FTP and %FTP are the basis for nearly all cycling training plans. It's the one objective number that doesn't change and is not dependent on location, speed, HR, or cadence.

I was looking into the complexity of bike fitting as well. Seems way more complicated than running shoes. Since I seem to have a choice of 4 bikes (for free and could go another route if necessary), do you think it would be smart on my part to measure the bikes to see how they would relate to my fit?

That's not a bad idea. As long as the frame fits you, you should be able to adjust the saddle and bars to make sure you're comfortable. If you ever move to buying a new bike, getting a professional fit is the first step in the process. They help you determine your ideal saddle height and fore/aft location, stem height, etc. Once you know all that, you can choose a frame which will meet those parameters. In your case, getting a free bike, I think you'll be fine with some rough measurements to ensure you're not sitting too tall, leaning too far forward, or too hunched over.

I should say though that I advocate to train by pace/effort moreso than %HRR when it comes to running. So maybe my connection wasn't actually that good.

%FTP seems more like a race equivalency calculator setup. A set % of FTP is a reasonable estimate for the duration one can hold that for. Kind of like how I design running plans based on relative fitness pacing and duration. So %FTP would be a better surrogate to pace in running.

And power is like a measurement of effort. One can have low cadence/big gear and high cadence/small gear and each method could equal the same power output. And power is independent of speed. Therefore a 300W is not always equal to 15mph (made up numbers) because sometimes that includes ups, downs, and flats. But the effort needed to generate 300w is always the same? So when going uphill, downhill or flat it takes the same effort to create 300w but the speed at which you're going will fluctuate. Just like in running a uphill the effort should remain the same (not the pace) for a consistent approach to a race/training run.

Does that sound in line @FFigawi ?

You got it. Watts are watts are watts. They have no correlation to speed whatsoever. As you noted, you can generate the same watts at 50rpm or 110rpm. The effort might be different because the muscles involved are different at those extremes, but for a training load, they're all watts.