Transdermal Technology – A Graphical Analysis…

So a couple of weeks ago I reviewed TDT and in doing so, sparked a debate on how good this product actually is in the real world. To contextualise its efficacy, I wanted to share the parameters of my testing.  You see I train, and take part in sprint Triathlons and part of that training involves heart rate periodisation.

So in my recovery training day, I train my heart rate to run around the 131bpm for around an hour and this generally involves turbo training.  I like using the turbo trainer because I can control the variables better, keeping my heart rate at a constant rate pretty much.

Medium intensity training involves 5 mins at 151bpm and 1min recovery at 131bpm and repeat until time or energy runs out.  I generally run this out on a treadmill because I can keep a visual on HR parameters a lot better.

High intensity training involves 1min at 166bpm, 1min at 131bpm, again repeating until time or energy runs out.  The majority of time I will use the treadmill or on occasion the rowing machine because again, I’m better placed to keep a visual on the parameters.

I use a Garmin 910XT to capture the data and I analyse the detail to see where I can make improvements, I use a cadence sensor on the bike and a foot pod when running as well as the trusty HR monitor (be kinda pointless not to use it!).

Back in November when I started this training protocol I wasn’t using Performance Spray at all, so I have good baseline data to compare against, so let me share the comparisons and explain in a little more detail.

Recovery Training (131bpm) – Performance metrics based on average HR over 1 hour set at approximately 131bpm.

131table1

131graph1

131graph2

Conclusion – While HR is pretty much identical over a sustained period, there are differences in cadence in both steps per minute and average pace.

High Intensity Training (166bpm)

So training my heart rate at 166bpm records an average HR lower than previous using PS by about 5bpm but look at the bike cadence, 21 additional reps per minute which is pretty impressive, but the most important thing I can see here is the HR charts.  The peaks are more sharper on the top graph which shows how quickly my HR is recovering once I drop the load back to 131bpm.  The average speed is 38km/h as opposed to 26.7km/h (11.3km/h faster overall!) at a lower heart rate which again is pretty significant.

166graph1

166graph2

Conclusion – Heart rate recovery is significantly better using PS and I’m having to work harder to maintain the same BPM making me a lot more efficient at a higher BPM range.

I just want to put it out there that I’m not trying to sell this product to anyone, I think ultimately it will sell itself, and now its got HFL tested status, its likely to explode in the endurance market once people realise just how effective this product is, and frankly I’m blown away by it.  On that point, I’m going to test this further as I’m about to start a more comprehensive testing phase that will tax my heart rate / recovery further.  Stayed tuned for more analysis 😉

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s