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.

Actually, it is - that is, if you "got it" you never would have posed the question in the first place.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.

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. LOL.

It is quite sad that someone of such supposed academic stature repeatedly reveals himself to be quite petty.I don't know if you have ever published in peer reviewed journals. But the tradition is to acknowledge the source of funding for the study at the end of the publication. Studies funded by the company itself do have a conflict of interest, and hence some will be more skeptical believing the results, especially if there is a chance of falsified data. Also, are the results from the studies peer reviewed or not?

Just a few comments from someone who doesn't train or own PMs or PCs...

Sure people are suggesting that measurement to 0.001 watt might be necessary when they suggest that more precision is always better.I'm not suggesting 0.0001 is necessary. Andy is saying it would be nice to have. I hope that you can distinguish the difference.
The question is how much precision is necessary and when does "more precision" become redundant and totally unnecessary.and I answered your question about the necessity of precision here (http://www.cyclingforums.com/showpost.php?p=3790321&postcount=143), which leads you to here (http://www.cyclingforums.com/showpost.php?p=3790148&postcount=110). Andy answered the question about necessity. So you can stop asking the same question incessantly as if we're not answering you.

When I wanted to learn about power meters, I read about them, I bought one 5 years ago, learned a lot from that and I've continued to learn more. So I was patient, asked a lot of questions and learned. I didn't come into a forum like a bull in a china shop just to create a disturbance as you have.

PCs do not live up to the claims made by their inventor and which still form the basis of claims made today i.e. "Cyclists: most increase cycling speed about 2-3 mph (that is about 40% in increased cycling power) in less than one season." and data presented on a public forum as evidence has been shown to be falsified.

Whether or not PCs actually have a beneficial effect on cycling performance has been lost in the fact that the claims made by the PC inventor are without basis, misleading to the extreme and data purported to support such claims was falsified.

Personally I prefer to play the ball rather than the man, but that's just my style.It depends on the target audience to some extent. If you take most triatheletes who can't pedal worth a damn then you'll see improvements.

I thought I knew how to pedal effectively but I certainly have benefited from using PC's the past few months. I know some overweight guy who's knocked off a few short 21's for 10 mile TTs to 1 56's for 50 mile TTs in the past isn't exactly the sort of guy that you want feedback from (I wouldn't - I want feedback from the guys knocking out sub 18 minute 10's and sub 1hr 40 for the 50) but I have to say these are one of the few items of mine that will not be seeing eBay, nor where they returned at the 3 month stage for the complete money back guarentee. If I chart progress and over the course of 12 months (3 tests) I see gains that are incremental, incremental and something akin to exponential and the only thing that's changed is "item X" then I really don't care what y'all say. LOL

Leiphemier apparently used them a while back and he got quicker and has become quite the time trial monster - but that could also be from other things too... who knows.

I can honestly say that if there hadn't been a 3 month grace period I wouldn't have bought them and if I didn't have the stubboness of a mule, then I probably would have packed them back into the box after 2 weeks for a refund.

I mostly like to play the ball too.... unless it starts getting dirty. ;)

Didn't you provide financial support for at least one of those studies? And aren't there some studies that have reported contradictory results?
Andy,

You seem like a fair chap. How 'bout you drum up a test with a sufficient number of riders to get something meaningful....

Aren't there always going to be studies that will contradict what other studies have already reported?

Anyhow, i seems to me that, unless the benefit is obvious (it is faster to fly to NY from LA than it is to drive) that usually a statistical analysis is required to demonstrate real benefit. What's not obvious? We have already explained to you the sources of error of other methods/instruments (so no need for you to ask that question again). How else are you going to get an accurate assessment of training progress?

I don't know if you have ever published in peer reviewed journals. But the tradition is to acknowledge the source of funding for the study at the end of the publication. Studies funded by the company itself do have a conflict of interest, and hence some will be more skeptical believing the results, especially if there is a chance of falsified data. Also, are the results from the studies peer reviewed or not?

Just a few comments from someone who doesn't train or own PMs or PCs...Ugh, I know the tradition. However, it is up to the journal as to what their rules are regarding this and it is up to the editors of the journal to enforce their rules, whatever they may be, in this regards.

The abstracts of every PowerCranks study I know of are available on our web page along with links to the actual studies (such as they exist, some remain unpublished). You may examine them and reach your own conclusion regarding there validity, strengths and/or weakensses.

Back on topic. When you hear of any studies that look at the efficacy a power meter as a training device, whether some small "ethical" lapse occurred on the part of the author, or not, please let us all know.

How else are you going to get an accurate assessment of training progress?I can think of many ways. Race results? Frequent training time trial efforts? Occasional testing? Assessing improvement is easy. Obtaining improvement is what is hard. I think that is what the original question was about.

That power meters do what they intend to do, measure power accurately? Here you go...

Development and evaluation of a new bicycle instrument for measurements of pedal forces and power output in cycling.
Int J Sports Med. 2007 Apr;28(4):326-32. Epub 2006 Oct 6.

Accuracy of SRM and power tap power monitoring systems for bicycling.
Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2004 Jul;36(7):1252-8.

Validity and reliability of the Polar S710 mobile cycling powermeter.
Int J Sports Med. 2003 Apr;24(3):156-61.

Validity and reliability of the PowerTap mobile cycling powermeter when compared with the SRM Device.
Int J Sports Med. 2005 Dec;26(10):868-73.

Agreement between polar and SRM mobile ergometer systems during laboratory-based high-intensity, intermittent cycling activity.
J Sports Sci. 2006 Aug;24(8):863-8.

I can think of many ways. Race results? Nope, race results can be obtained independent of a good performance. Simon Jones was happier with the British Teams Pursuit's silver medal at Worlds behind Australia than 4 weeks earlier when they rolled the Aussies at Commonwealth Games.

Frequent training time trial efforts?
Yes if you can hold all external factors constant. Good luck with that. Though judging by your products infomercial (doesn't any product that needs one of these ring warning bells) we can expect divine intervention for any users.

Occasional testing?Hah, and what criteria will you test?


Assessing improvement is easy. Obtaining improvement is what is hard. I think that is what the original question was about.
Glad you mention that. Whole lotta research about specificity of training. Train as you intend to race. Similar courses, similar conditions, similar weather, similar equipment. See where i'm headed with this?

Hey Frank, did a Pubmed search for your product and didn't find anything. Does this mean all this research has not been published in any reputable journals?

Also found these studies...

Leg muscle recruitment during cycling is less developed in triathletes than cyclists despite matched cycling training loads. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17549464?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DiscoveryPanel.Pubmed_Discovery_RA&linkpos=1) [Exp Brain Res. 2007]

"Our findings imply that control of muscle recruitment is less developed in triathletes than in cyclists matched for cycling training loads, which suggests that multidiscipline training may interfere with adaptation of the neuromuscular system to cycling training in triathletes."

Effective force and economy of triathletes and cyclists.
Sports Biomech. 2007 Jan;6(1):31-43.

Patterns of leg muscle recruitment vary between novice and highly trained cyclists. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17258470?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DiscoveryPanel.Pubmed_Discovery_RA&linkpos=1) [J Electromyogr Kinesiol. 2007]

Do differences in muscle recruitment between novice and elite cyclists reflect different movement patterns or less skilled muscle recruitment? (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18077215?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DiscoveryPanel.Pubmed_Discovery_RA&linkpos=5) [J Sci Med Sport. 2007]

Triathletes show less efficiency than cyclists with same cycle training load due to interference from other modes of training. Elite cyclists are better at pedalling because they (not exactly rocket science) have more experience. Not quite sure where your product fits in as it changes the pedalling parameters and like a Triathlete running and swimming detracts from time that could be well spent becoming better at pedalling. Unless people intend to race with your product. Do see a lot of people race with SRM or Powertap.

Obtaining improvement is what is hard. I think that is what the original question was about.But again, power meters don't impose any particular way or method to obtain improvement. So what is it exactly you plan to study? We've already told you why the precision is necessary so please don't repeat that same answer.

So it looks like this whole thread was a waste of time since it didn't result in the sale of a single PowerCrank.

Of course, if anyone actually is considering Powercranks, there are Smartcranks, the non-spamming alternative:

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

So it looks like this whole thread was a waste of time since it didn't result in the sale of a single PowerCrank.

Of course, if anyone actually is considering Powercranks, there are Smartcranks, the non-spamming alternative:

http://www.smartcranks.com/main_e.htm
This thread probably only resulted in the sale of beer and porn.... and probably got some wondering if they could get a refund from their ISP.

That is financial support - too bad the investigators violated the ethics of their profession for failing to reveal this fact.

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?"

How the heck is someone supposed to get product tested? Just wait until someone ponies up enough of their own money (or even worse grants that come from the tax payers hard earned...) to buy 10 pairs of powercranks so they can distribute them to willing riders just because they think it'll make a worthwhile research project.... and then have to listen to everyone on cyclingforums.com say that it's not a valid test because only 10 riders were involved. ;)

But again, power meters don't impose any particular way or method to obtain improvement. So what is it exactly you plan to study? We've already told you why the precision is necessary so please don't repeat that same answer.Well, I guess one would study the method of using them to see if one method of use might result in more benefit over another method or comparing one of these uses to another, more traditional, way of training. For instance, some here have specified that certain uses are better than others (one here has even written a book on the subject).

Hey Frank, did a Pubmed search for your product and didn't find anything.Well, here's one that studied Smartcranks (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18273633) using a randomized controlled experimental design. Its conclusion was:"We observed no significant statistical difference for peak power [...] and PO at IAT [...] for SmartCrank and control conditions, respectively (P > 0.05). However, we did observe that work distribution in the downward phase was significantly reduced in the SmartCranks training group at peak PO [...]. Although the possible implications of the change in the work distribution of sectors are not known, for the success in cycling performance-indicated by the PO-training with the SmartCranks was not more advantageous than training with conventional bicycle cranks."

If someone lends or gives a facility some product for testing this is "unethical?" No. What would be considered unethical is if the authors of the study don't reveal that they got support from the manufacturer of the product being tested. Even with disclosure there are still ethical traps that need to be avoided, but dislosure is the first step.

[Edit:] For example, the study referred to just above acknowledged that the equipment was provided by Smartcranks.

Well, here's one that studied Smartcranks (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18273633) using a randomized controlled experimental design. It's conclusion was:" was not more advantageous than training with conventional bicycle cranks."Hmmm, no surprises there.

Hmmm, no surprises there.Yeh, especially when you see the protocol. LOL If one expects to see benefit from a product on might actually want to read and follow the directions. PC's won't make you faster if you buy them and put them under your pillow. Same, I suspect, with a PM.