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

Fday

I do as it is the only thing you ever point out about the paper. It is how you "rebut" it. You never discuss the contents. This seems to be the only thing that interests you about the paper. Focusing on this allows you to avoid addressing the main finding that goes against one of your major biases. It is that simple I think.

Fday

Requirement of (name organization here)? And, the penalty for failing in this "requirement"?

Fday

That is the duty of the editors, also, to make sure the paper is transparent. It is not possible for an author to put all the raw data into a paper such that if it is misinterpreted it might be "hidden" yet not constitute an ethical breach. Papers are summaries of what happened. That is the purpose of disclosing methods and protocols so that anyone can repeat the study to see if the results are confirmed. It is what occurred to "debunk" the cold fusion results. If someone thinks the data is skewed because of this ethical lapse it would be easy for them to repeat the study, get alternative results, and publish them to prove this was a problem. No one has thought this was a big enough problem here to actually do this (besides the results might be confirmed and then they are in their own ethical dilemma if they don't publish) so let's just continue to trash the reputation of these people who came up with results "we" don't like.

acoggan

We've discussed the results ad nauseum, so there's no point revisting that issue. However, many here are probably unaware of the fact that you supported the study (since the authors failed to disclose it), so I feel obligated to do so.

acoggan

No, it's the duty of the authors, as an editor has no way of knowing what financial conflicts might potentially exist.

Fday

Sure I have (edit: considered the influences of the weather, etc and I have done zero mass start racing). but if you ride the same training loop everyday you learn that the results hardly ever vary by more than a minute when you take into account stop lights, etc. You learn what is "normal" for you for any given effort. Big short term changes and changes over time (the value of a training log here) are easily discerned. If you need a number to assess that improvement so be it. But, that number might be missing improvements in aerodynamics, if one is working on that also.

Felt_Rider

16 pages later and how many are sold on the effectiveness of PC's compared to PM's as a training aide?

Start a poll Frank and find out how many have changed their opinions with the start of this thread.

The people that might side with you maybe over at ebay pawning off their bike gear, but how are you going to convince guys on this thread that have already witnessed positive gains implementing a particular training program and tracking that data?

__________________
My Blog

acoggan

Probably every scientific and/or medical society one can think of.



In the most egregious cases, expulsion from the society, and refusal to publish any papers in the future.

(Of course, being a physician you're probably used to operating in a world where drug companies will pay doctors to write up experiments for publication that they had nothing at all to do with conducting, thus allowing the drug company to pass off their in-house research as being an "independent university study". Indeed, it was this common practice up until the last decade or so ago that helped lead to the tightening of disclosure requirements across the board.)

Watoni

Stop already!

Power is an exceptionally useful training metric, but not a training method, as so many have said.

If anything, PC and other techniques may lead to improved efficiency, which I know many folks here do not ascribe to; however, that is the real question in my mind. I have two bikes of the same weight/wheels set up differently and with 5 watts more on average I did over two minutes better on a 7km climb. There is something else going on there other than just watts/kg -- power doesn't explain it, but by being such an exact measure power gives a clue as to how to attempt to get at something that is harder to measure ...

Fday

Sure I have. but if you ride the same training loop everyday you learn that the results hardly ever vary by more than a minute when you take into account stop lights, etc. You learn what is "normal" for you for any given effort. Big short term changes and changes over time (the value of a training log here) are easily discerned. If you need a number to assess that improvement so be it. But, that number might be missing improvements in aerodynamics, if one is working on that also.

Fday

Apparently a "practical joke". But, who knows. It is a fact it occurred. If someone asked you for one of your power files would you check it to see if it had been altered before you sent it on?

The unadulterated file support the original contention without the inconsistencies, as near as I can tell. Parts of the ride that were originally missing are now back in the file.

Fday

But, isn't this cadence information that can be derived from a PM just pointing out what had been demonstrated in the lab over and over many years earlier. People just simply ignored this data preferring to ride by feel and logic. In fact, it appears it still happens, even at the highest levels, despite the supposed "utility" of the power meter which would help people to figure this out, as evidenced by the Ulmer anecdote. She trains with power, going for a world record. Mechanic makes a mistake and gives her a much bigger gear. She rides a a lower cadence and does much better than expected because she unexpectedly has more power. the power meter was not responsible for that improvement.

People see Lance riding at high cadences and think it is best for everyone.

Fday

Hey, do you know of some regarding the use of the PM? That was what I was asking for back in post 1.

Fday

LOL. Let's see. To dominate the TDF what must a Cat 1 or 2 rider do.

1. turn pro
2. get on a team.
3. hope that team gets selected to the tour
4. get selected to represent the team at the tour
5. be selected to be the team leader so you are protected.
6. avoid crashes and other problems for 3 weeks.

Maybe now we can understand why this hasn't been "documented". LOL

Giving a Cat 2 rider a large increase in power is likely to cause numbers 1 and 2 to occur, if the rider is motivated for them to occur. Beyond that it is a crap shoot, ask Levi.