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

Alex Simmons

yeah, you are right, it was you that mentioned the cranks on post number two of this thread. Then Frank took you up on post number three

__________________
http://alex-cycle.blogspot.com/
http://www.cyclecoach.com/

fergie

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!

__________________
Hamish Ferguson: Cycling Coach
http://hamishferguson.blogspot.com/

Steve_B

I read Andy and Hunter's book and, again, I don't think there's anything in there specifying certain methods of training only how to use a power meter as an information source. However you seem stuck on beating that non-existent drum...

What I am puzzled by is why you are now all the sudden on the war path against the use of power meters. (You've gone beyond masking it as inquiry based upon some of your statements.) You admit that power measurement is "the" reference but think it just might be unnecessary for people to use. However, if someone wants to use one, why do you give a rat's ass anyway? If someone wants to have more and better information (and you admitted that it is the best information) at their fingertips, why does it matter to you?

RChung

What do you think of the Luttrell and Potteiger study 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?

RChung

I'm sure that's true, but it's irrelevant. Both the pre- and post-training tests were done with standard cranks.

ric_stern/RST

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

__________________
http://www.cyclecoach.com

bbrauer

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.

__________________
www.liquidfitness.com

Squint

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

acoggan

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



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

Steve_B

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

acoggan

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).

acoggan

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

acoggan

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.

acoggan

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