What is the evidence that training with power is superior to . . .

Since 2001, over 90,000 cyclist's have joined Cycling Forums to discuss topics from general cycling to equipment, training, racing and travel or vacation destinations (especially in europe during the tour de france). We also feature an great deals in our online store, 100's of articles, classifieds and product reviews.

Ohh poor Swampy. We have been pretty decent about Frank and his claims. Don't go and lose the plot on us now. You haven't made any points that can be backed up. Neither has Frank. In fact a wattage file presented to show the "benefits" of PCs was clearly doctored. Pretty sad really. Sorry if us fitness professionals seem to be Hell bent on bursting your bubble but we have a duty to provide people with the best information so they can invest their time, money and cycling based emotions wisely.

We have done a pretty darned good job of providing the evidence that training with power is a very effective way to improve as cyclist. I am not going to lose any sleep if you or Frank choose to ignore it. We have also saved people the necessity of trying PCs as there is a ton of good research that will show that specificity of training is paramount and whatever gimmick you want to try whether it is different cranks, secret training methods or balancing a beachball on your nose all that effort is going to achieve is making you better at that specific task.

I look forward to seeing further developments in the PCs saga as I flick through infomercials as I struggle to find something decent on TV. Just don't expect to pass off anecdotes here as evidence without getting called on it!

I love Frank (sort of). He always makes me laugh with his trolling. Off the top of my head, Frank's classic comments are:

1) An average cyclist (2nd cat as defined by Frank) will gain about 40% increase in aerobic power. This would make the average cyclist likely go top 10 in the TdF. This has never happened.

2) Some pros supposedly use Power Cranks. Even with a smaller increase in power than 40% there would be a huge difference in ability at the pro level. Perhaps this is the "two speeds" that French pros often talk about (although i was always led to believe that, that referred to the use of Epo/blood doping, which gives an increase in power of no more than 10%)

3) Frank had a triathlete who was using the cranks and was going to smash the world Hour cycling record. This never happened and then Frank woke up and had his breakfast

4) Frank mentioned to everyone on slowtwitch that some 10 year old girl on his cranks would beat everyone in a hill climb race. For reasons that no one understands, the girl turned up a day early

5) As previously mentioned, Frank posted to slowtwitch about his Spanish rider who had increased his FTP hugely via the use of Power Cranks and this was documented with a Power Tap. RChung realised upon analysing the file that the data had been tampered with

I've probably missed a load more or forgotten them.

I don't believe that any of Franks claims stand up to scrutiny.

Ric

Yes. Unfortunately for that approach, however, the evidence suggests that is a very difficult skill to learn without PC's. Ask almost any user.
Actually, I tried a Powercrank demo at the track championships in LA a couple months ago and the rep said I probably was in the top %5 of effective users. Never been on PCs before; I've just practiced good technique over the years.

Marco Pinoti regularly posts on the PowerCranks blogs and had this to post "After 8 weeks I reached a point where I could do a complete 3hr training without being death in the end." Broken english aside, the guy is a Pro - Current Italian Time Trial champion, Pro Rider since 1999, 3 times Tour de France veteran, 3 times Giro d'Italia veteran, 1 time Vuelta Espana veteran, now riding with Team High Road - but it takes someone like that two months to be able to train for 3 hours properly on these things, what does that mean for the mere bottomfeeders like us? LOL.

What it tells us is that there's no relationship between being a high caliber pro cyclist and a trained Powercranker. If it took Pinotti two months to adapt to Powercranks then the adaptations to all the years of training that made him a good pro were of a completely different nature.

So now we have pros who use PCs and need an adaptation period. Amateurs also need an adaptation period. But after training with PCs, they haven't improved at all, i.e., they haven't become pros.

If the adaptation PCs hope to force is pedaling in circles, we can conclude that pros don't pedal in circles and when amateurs learn to pedal in circles, they don't increase their power output 40% and become pros. In fact, they don't increase it at all.

This is consistent with studies on pedaling in circles and all that nonsense. Pros don't do it and it won't make you faster so buying PCs will just make you poorer. But if you fall for the PC gimmicks you probably make a lot of unwise financial decisions anyway.

However, if you were considering Powercranks, consider Smartcranks instead. They don't spam (at least to the best of my knowledge).

http://www.smartcranks.com/main_e.htm

http://www.smartcranks.com/images/8vma1_g.gif



http://www.smartcranks.com/images/mu_m_sc_e.jpghttp://www.smartcranks.com/images/mu_konv_e.jpg

Ah yes, belittle others in any way you can, as if there was some nefarious intent to that ommission. Anyhow, the data speaks for itself and whether the author failed to reveal the "financial relationship" when published, it has been revealed by me. There is nothing to hide. You may interpret the data now knowing full well that "financial relationship" existed.

I can - but probably 99+% of those that read the paper have been denied this information, due to the authors' unethical omission.

It is quite sad that someone of such supposed academic stature repeatedly reveals himself to be quite petty.

I don't think that there is anything petty about pointing out such ethical lapses.

They don't spam.Perhaps not, but you seem to be doing that for them. :rolleyes:

Sure I would. I "get it" about my own product yet I understand the need for science to back up my "understanding"- what I "get". Hence, I support getting as many studies done as possible. Some have been completed, more are on the way.

Apparently you missed out on that lesson. It is always nice to have a little science behind your beliefs. So there is "getting it" and "getting" the science to back up what you are "getting". Seems you forgot the later.

The problem here is that you don't even realize what constitutes my beliefs re. the utility of powermeters (though I've hinted at them). If you did, you wouldn't be posing the questions that you do (to me, anyway).

the tradition is to acknowledge the source of funding for the study at the end of the publication.

Actually, it's a bit more than tradition, it's an ethical requirement.

OK, this is one thing in this thread that did confuse me....

If someone lends or gives a facility some product for testing this is "unethical?"

No, what is unethical is to fail to publically acknowledge such support when presenting one's findings, just as it is unethical to, e.g., bury any data you've collected that conflicts with the conclusions you've drawn. IOW, readers of a scientific paper have a right to know anything that might influence their interpretation of the results of a study...and this includes any financial support (in terms of money, goods, services), since it potentially represents a conflict of interest.

some here have specified that certain uses are better than others (one here has even written a book on the subject).

There is really nothing in our book advocating one approach over another.

I can think of many ways. Race results? Frequent training time trial efforts? Occasional testing? Assessing improvement is easy.You've clearly never determined how much of an effect wind, barometric pressure, temperature, clothing etc. can have upon rider speed and thus, how much of an effect they have upon traditional determinations of training progress. It's not super hard to do; there are even websites where you can do decent analyses of this. The power meter removes all those sources of error. Bottom line: it's much harder to be certain without a power meter.

As for trying to assess improvement with race results - it would seem that you have never actually done a significant amount of time doing mass-start racing, otherwise you would know that there are way too many factors influencing the outcome to make it a good indicator.

Of course, I (we) can say all this to you but you'll continue to beat your drum of ignorance....

Perhaps not, but you seem to be doing that for them. :rolleyes:

I'm just trying to dilute whatever effectiveness Frank gets by starting these threads. Equal coverage--sort of along the lines of regulations for election campaigns.

Pros use powermeters:

http://www.poshbikes.com/images_new/products/srm2006_1_m.jpg

http://www.poshbikes.com/images_new/products/srm2006_2_m.jpg

What don't you see? Powercranks!

Pros use powermeters:

Ironically, just yesterday I was looking at the pics of the finish on Brasstown Bald at the Tour of Georgia, and noticed that Sivtsov, Lowe, and Leipheimer were using powermeters. You wouldn't have seen something like that just a few years ago...

We have done a pretty darned good job of providing the evidence that training with power is a very effective way to improve as cyclist.Thanks for that. What was asked though, in the original post, was for evidence that training with power was superior to other, readily available and older, methods to "improve as a cyclist". That is the claim that many make. Just wanted to know what the evidence was to support such claims.

What do you think of the Luttrell and Potteiger study (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=14666944&dopt=Abstract) that Frank has been touting for the last five years? You know, the one whose study period was -- um, let's see now; oh, yeah -- 6 weeks?
Now you know why I said what I said earlier - I evalute my own equipment based on at least 3 months worth of usage (if it involves a different technique/position). If PC's didn't come with a 3 month money back deal then I wouldn't have tried them. Right now I don't have anything pressing interms of having to be fit for racing etc - just need to lose weight and then decide if I want to get serious which makes this a perfect year for me to "play" with stuff and see what happens.

If it's a piece of kit such as a disk wheel, saddle or funky handlebars then testing those at speed becomes a little more nebulous - although one would expect to see and improvement with the disk but unlike the climb I test on that's pretty sheltered from the prevailing winds I don't know of somewhere that's wind free for the most part. Then I have to go off manufacturers claims.

I'm just trying to dilute whatever effectiveness Frank gets by starting these threads. Equal coverage--sort of along the lines of regulations for election campaigns.

Pros use powermeters:

http://www.poshbikes.com/images_new/products/srm2006_1_m.jpg

http://www.poshbikes.com/images_new/products/srm2006_2_m.jpg

What don't you see? Powercranks!
You don't see Powercranks in road races for pretty much the same reason you don't see aero or Cinelli's spinaci bars... I don't think they're legal in mass start races in many countries.

... besides the big downside to riding on PowerCranks is that it makes descending rather "odd" not something that you'd want going downhill with 200 other riders at 50+mph.

Thanks for that. What was asked though, in the original post, was for evidence that training with power was superior to other, readily available and older, methods to "improve as a cyclist". That is the claim that many make. Just wanted to know what the evidence was to support such claims.Well, in the absence of PMs, most riders thought cadence was important. Now we're englightened enough to recognize cadence for the red herring it is.

Ironically, just yesterday I was looking at the pics of the finish on Brasstown Bald at the Tour of Georgia, and noticed that Sivtsov, Lowe, and Leipheimer were using powermeters. You wouldn't have seen something like that just a few years ago...
Do you think that would change if the UCI removed the minimum weight requirement for the bikes? How many riders do you think would swap the information for less weight?

I wonder, if you can use a combination of heart rate and power to subjectively tell that you're really not going to have a good day, so you could put on your best poker face and concentrate your efforts into pulling a 'big bluff'. LOL Kinda like the "anti-Armstrong" bluff on the way to Alpe D'Huez in 2001.

What do you think of the Luttrell and Potteiger study (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=14666944&dopt=Abstract) that Frank has been touting for the last five years? You know, the one whose study period was -- um, let's see now; oh, yeah -- 6 weeks?Well, I was surprised that Luttrell got the results they did in 6 weeks. But, there is a substantial difference in intensity and training method between the two studies. Luttrell had the subjects doing 3 1 hour sessions a week for 6 weeks. One has to go beyond the superficialities if one hopes to be able to understand and explain differences.

The SmartCranks study had only 2 sessions a week for 5 weeks (so, about half the sessions even though it lasted almost as long) and then had some crazy 3 minute pedaling periods as stimulus during those sessions (I am still not sure I understand what they did). I think this study simply points out that any training tool must be used long enough and properly to demonstrate any benefit. It certainly didn't test our recommended use for optimal benefit.

This study was discussed in detail over at slowtwitch awhile back. link here (http://forum.slowtwitch.com/gforum.cgi?do=post_view_flat;post=1679203;page=1;sb=post_latest_reply;so=ASC;mh=25;)

Now you know why I said what I said earlier - I evalute my own equipment based on at least 3 months worth of usage (if it involves a different technique/position). If PC's didn't come with a 3 month money back deal then I wouldn't have tried them.[...] I have to go off manufacturers claims [in cases where you can't do your own testing].Hmmm. So you're saying this your preferred order is:

1. Your own three month long trials.
2. Manufacturer's claims.

How many steps after (2) are there before you get to independent scientific research using randomized controlled trials?

I love Frank (sort of). He always makes me laugh with his trolling. Off the top of my head, Frank's classic comments are:

1) An average cyclist (2nd cat as defined by Frank) will gain about 40% increase in aerobic power. This would make the average cyclist likely go top 10 in the TdF. This has never happened. You have a pretty low estimation of what it takes to win the TDF if you think that an increase of 40% power in a 20 minute test (Conconi protocol) would translate to win in a 3 week stage race.


2) Some pros supposedly use Power Cranks. Even with a smaller increase in power than 40% there would be a huge difference in ability at the pro level. Perhaps this is the "two speeds" that French pros often talk about (although i was always led to believe that, that referred to the use of Epo/blood doping, which gives an increase in power of no more than 10%)You live quite close to one of the major pros who is a big proponent of the PC's (Magnus Backstedt) yet seemingly find it impossible to meet with and talk with him about what he thinks about the product. What are you afraid of, the truth?


3) Frank had a triathlete who was using the cranks and was going to smash the world Hour cycling record. This never happened and then Frank woke up and had his breakfastHey, people tell us they are going to try something and we let people know. If they fail, so be it.


4) Frank mentioned to everyone on slowtwitch that some 10 year old girl on his cranks would beat everyone in a hill climb race. For reasons that no one understands, the girl turned up a day early Ugh, I misunderstood. It was a ST group ride, not a race. When I heard she was going to be riding the same mountain that weekend I thought she was doing the "race". She didn't show up because it wasn't a race, it was a ride. If she had shown up she would have kicked everyone's butt. Saw here at WC this year. She now has more national championships than she is old. Soon she will be old enough to race with the "adults". It will be fun.


5) As previously mentioned, Frank posted to slowtwitch about his Spanish rider who had increased his FTP hugely via the use of Power Cranks and this was documented with a Power Tap. RChung realised upon analysing the file that the data had been tampered with RChung was also forwarded the unadulterated file. The Spanish guy in question figured out how the file was adulterated and, probably by whom. But, what happened, happened. The original file has been retrieved and submitted to both me and RChung to confirm that it is unadulterated. However, you will never see it as he ask both of us to keep it to ourselves as he was so pissed off at the whole scene, accusing him of deliberately lying. You may confirm that with RChung if you like.


I've probably missed a load more or forgotten them. Most probably.


I don't believe that any of Franks claims stand up to scrutiny.

Ric
But, the purpose of this thread was to put the "claims" regarding training with a power meter under scruitiny. Seems you have conveniently managed to ignore this, choosing instead to throw mud at unrelated issues.