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.

Ugh, I son't know of a sinngle cyling race that gives the trophy to the rider who can generate the most power. Usually it goes to the fastest. Going fast involves a lot of skills. Power is just one metric one can work on to achieve that fastest goal.

Why would you presume that looking at that single metric would be the best measure of how one will perform overall? Obviously, you believe so, which gets me back to the original question. Is there any evidence to support your proposition that measuring this one metric is superior to other methods of measuring achievement when preparing for a bike race?Frank, you're really shitty at being evasive but really good at talking in circles.You know that you are twisting what I said and contradicting what you said before. Everybody else knows that too.

I feel really sorry for you. Since you clearly derive some perverse joy from being in an endless loop, I'm not going to even entertain your foolishness. You need some professional help. I suggest that you go see a shrink and get off these forums.

I didn't RTFT, but I have evidence. Before training with power, I was sprinting for 15th in every M35+ race.

Third race after starting to train with power, sprinting for the win from a 5-man break (Ronde von Manda):


http://img174.imageshack.us/img174/921/2375708770075ee9bc08obw4.jpg

They didn't know, they guessed.
I guess that I just guessed that I was going faster when my TT times dropped both in time and in relation to those I raced against.... Just sayin'

I'd hate to see what happens to y'all if there's a bug in the PowerTap software that kills all headunits on 09/09/09. You'd all stand next to your bikes and wonder what the heck you were supposed to do! :p

Ugh, I son't know of a sinngle cyling race that gives the trophy to the rider who can generate the most power. Usually it goes to the fastest. Going fast involves a lot of skills. Power is just one metric one can work on to achieve that fastest goal.

Why would you presume that looking at that single metric would be the best measure of how one will perform overall? Obviously, you believe so, which gets me back to the original question. Is there any evidence to support your proposition that measuring this one metric is superior to other methods of measuring achievement when preparing for a bike race?
Still waiting for you to tell me what the other methods are that you are referring to. We've already written off HR and RPE, so all that is left is the stopwatch.

Power is the physical quantity that propels the bike forward, the only one. All other quantities to which you could possibly be referring, such as aerodynamics, weight, efficiency etc are working against propelling a bike forwards. However, the effect of all of these quantities can be completely and accurately measured with a power meter, since a power meter does not only measure power, it measures speed and time as well. So, the optimisation of these other quantities are measureable using a power meter - the nett effect of all of these variables are measurable with a power meter, no other tool is capable of this.

What other methods can possibly be used when preparing for a bike race, i.e. not racing, preparing (your words not mine). I don't think you'll find a single proponent of power meter usage saying that power numbers guarantee the win in a race. We all know that tactics, timing, luck play a role, but we are talking about preparing for a bike race, so saying bike race results are the best measuring tool for preparing for a bike race is illogical.

So, please, could you list the other methods of measuring an athletes preparation that you are referring to?

So, please, could you list the other methods of measuring an athletes preparation that you are referring to?
Marketing:D

Third race after starting to train with power, sprinting for the win from a 5-man break (Ronde von Manda)

Congratulations!

Congratulations!Thanks! Turns out that the course fit my NP-busting profile nicely.

Still waiting for you to tell me what the other methods are that you are referring to. We've already written off HR and RPE, so all that is left is the stopwatch.

Power is the physical quantity that propels the bike forward, the only one. All other quantities to which you could possibly be referring, such as aerodynamics, weight, efficiency etc are working against propelling a bike forwards. However, the effect of all of these quantities can be completely and accurately measured with a power meter, since a power meter does not only measure power, it measures speed and time as well. So, the optimisation of these other quantities are measureable using a power meter - the nett effect of all of these variables are measurable with a power meter, no other tool is capable of this.

What other methods can possibly be used when preparing for a bike race, i.e. not racing, preparing (your words not mine). I don't think you'll find a single proponent of power meter usage saying that power numbers guarantee the win in a race. We all know that tactics, timing, luck play a role, but we are talking about preparing for a bike race, so saying bike race results are the best measuring tool for preparing for a bike race is illogical.

So, please, could you list the other methods of measuring an athletes preparation that you are referring to?You have encapsulated the thread, essentially. That's the territory we covered.

Frank will try to slip around the points you make like an eel. He'll talk in circles, contradict himself, change the subject, move the goalposts, etc. He will try to do whatever it takes to keep the thread going. He's not interested in a real debate. He's a sick, sick man.

Ugh, I son't know of a sinngle cyling race that gives the trophy to the rider who can generate the most power. Usually it goes to the fastest. Going fast involves a lot of skills. Power is just one metric one can work on to achieve that fastest goal.

Why would you presume that looking at that single metric would be the best measure of how one will perform overall? Obviously, you believe so, which gets me back to the original question. Is there any evidence to support your proposition that measuring this one metric is superior to other methods of measuring achievement when preparing for a bike race?Integrity is too precious to give it away slowly for a dollar or a smidgen of prestige one post at a time. What does it profit a man to gain the whole world but forfeit his soul?

Still waiting for you to tell me what the other methods are that you are referring to. We've already written off HR and RPE, so all that is left is the stopwatch.

Power is the physical quantity that propels the bike forward, the only one. All other quantities to which you could possibly be referring, such as aerodynamics, weight, efficiency etc are working against propelling a bike forwards. However, the effect of all of these quantities can be completely and accurately measured with a power meter, since a power meter does not only measure power, it measures speed and time as well. So, the optimisation of these other quantities are measureable using a power meter - the nett effect of all of these variables are measurable with a power meter, no other tool is capable of this.

What other methods can possibly be used when preparing for a bike race, i.e. not racing, preparing (your words not mine). I don't think you'll find a single proponent of power meter usage saying that power numbers guarantee the win in a race. We all know that tactics, timing, luck play a role, but we are talking about preparing for a bike race, so saying bike race results are the best measuring tool for preparing for a bike race is illogical.

So, please, could you list the other methods of measuring an athletes preparation that you are referring to?Well, speed and time (and HR and PE) are all available without power. They were pretty much the standard metrics athletes used before power became readily available. Some top athletes still use those metrics, ignoring power. The original question has to do with whether there is any good evidence that adding power into the training mix makes any significant difference. I don't doubt that it could. I was just wondering what the evidence is that it does. From the posts here all the "evidence" appears to be all anecdotal. Don't take it so hard. That doesn't mean what you are doing is worthless. It simply means it hasn't been "proven" to be better than other methods of training.

the use of devices which quantify cycling are useful as a reference only.
true, if one has an odometer you may ride more miles, a hrm might record efoort and recovery parameters, and a pm will encourage seeking higher output...but, the be all and end all is to know your body and train intuitively.

ultimately, it is the the raw talent will be soley relied on and be the limiting factor if this fundamental is ignored.

this brings to mind where a maynard hershon character, in a non-fictional short story, judged the purchasing of pancake mix to be of more value than ti nipples. and so it is with any cycling equipment, you still gotta ride the thing, with respect to this intuition.


training with any other effort/intensity feedback system such as HR, perceived exertion, stopwatch, etc.

I have been asking this on slowtwitch and the best I can ascertain from the replies the so-called evidence to support these devices and this method of training is entirely anecdotal. Thought I would ask here.

It's a shame that it's prom night (too many kids driving drunk) and I don't have a lighting system on the bike brighter than a thousand suns. It's a lovely night in NorCal and it'd be perfect for going out in the hills, although a taser would be good for fending off the mountain lions this time of year at night....

.... what was really funny today, apart from seeing that I'd lost 3lb this week, was riding the PowerCranks in fixed mode when going out for a ride with the family down the bike trail to the park. It suprised the sh*t outa me when I pushed down on one pedal and the other crank popped up the other side. My wife could figure out why I almost fell off my bike and started laughing.... Having my feet come off the pedals on the "upstroke" was bizzare. Then again, Adidas Samba shoes ain't meant for cycling in.

Well, speed and time (and HR and PE) are all available without power. They were pretty much the standard metrics athletes used before power became readily available. Some top athletes still use those metrics, ignoring power. The original question has to do with whether there is any good evidence that adding power into the training mix makes any significant difference. I don't doubt that it could. I was just wondering what the evidence is that it does. From the posts here all the "evidence" appears to be all anecdotal. Don't take it so hard. That doesn't mean what you are doing is worthless. It simply means it hasn't been "proven" to be better than other methods of training.
There is plenty of evidence, the vast majority of scientific journal publications that measure the effect of a training technique or training device (yours included), utilise power as the metric on which results are determined. What more evidence could you ask for. If you do question that power as a metric contributes to the analysis of results, you should refrain from utilising it in any results that you publish, since it hasn't been proven yet.

Frank, I can truly understand why there is such a negative attitude towards you and your product on these forums. Just in the quote above you have managed to firstly contradict yourself (previously you replied to me that HR and PE do not measure performance improvements, now you have brought them back into the argument) and secondly, you persist in stating that power is a "method of training".

I'm not taking anything hard, I know what my results have been training with power and coaching with power (purely anecdotal), so I'm not about to throw away the power meter and install any other device in the search for improvement.

There is plenty of evidence, the vast majority of scientific journal publications that measure the effect of a training technique or training device (yours included), utilise power as the metric on which results are determined. What more evidence could you ask for. If you do question that power as a metric contributes to the analysis of results, you should refrain from utilising it in any results that you publish, since it hasn't been proven yet.

Frank, I can truly understand why there is such a negative attitude towards you and your product on these forums. Just in the quote above you have managed to firstly contradict yourself (previously you replied to me that HR and PE do not measure performance improvements, now you have brought them back into the argument) and secondly, you persist in stating that power is a "method of training".

I'm not taking anything hard, I know what my results have been training with power and coaching with power (purely anecdotal), so I'm not about to throw away the power meter and install any other device in the search for improvement.Thank you so much for squaring me away. Thanks to your efforts I now have come to understand that if one is doing a study and wants to measure power as the outcome variable that the best way to do that would be with a power meter. Didn't know why I didn't understand that in the beginning. Thanks again.

Thank you so much for squaring me away. Thanks to your efforts I now have come to understand that if one is doing a study and wants to measure power as the outcome variable that the best way to do that would be with a power meter. Didn't know why I didn't understand that in the beginning. Thanks again.
No no, I should thank you, for helping me understand that virtually the entire sports science community has chosen an outcome variable to measure for which there is no evidence (apart from classical physics) to support it. Must be that they are all blindly following each other's anecdotal stories.

I truly hope that some of the learned folk that frequent this forum will see the error of their ways.

No no, I should thank you, for helping me understand that virtually the entire sports science community has chosen an outcome variable to measure for which there is no evidence (apart from classical physics) to support it. Must be that they are all blindly following each other's anecdotal stories.

I truly hope that some of the learned folk that frequent this forum will see the error of their ways.You are welcome. Just trying to do my best to help people (including myself) see things a little more clearly by asking the right questions. Sometimes it is hard though but when a few come around (even if it is just myself) it is worth it. Thanks for participating. :-)

I truly hope that some of the learned folk that frequent this forum will see the error of their ways.

That's it. Bingo! i'm selling my collection of power meters.

That's it. Bingo! i'm selling my collection of power meters.Any good deals? :D:D;)
Crap, I have 5 already:p

Any good deals? :D:D;)
Crap, I have 5 already:p

I'll have one! Got a 2.4 on 28s? I'm planning on doing the Tour of Bright and reckon the 32km mountain climb needs a lighter PT than my current squeeze...

As for the original post, why ask if there's evidence to support the use of power meters? If you want to use one, do so. If you want to just ride lots, do so. It's a free world.

I'll have one! Got a 2.4 on 28s? I'm planning on doing the Tour of Bright and reckon the 32km mountain climb needs a lighter PT than my current squeeze...

As for the original post, why ask if there's evidence to support the use of power meters? If you want to use one, do so. If you want to just ride lots, do so. It's a free world.I suspect that the answer is http://www.cyclingforums.com/showpost.php?p=3788711&postcount=24