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

Steve_B

1) That it is a superior measurement device is not questioned.
2) No one here (to my knowledge) has said that its measurement capability makes you a superstar just by being in its presence. You still have to do the work.

Can you distinguish between the two items? Apparently not.

swampy1970

Frank can make whatever claims he wants. Regardless of what the product is, I rarely view the manufacturers advertising and claims as useful. Cycling Science back in the day was a wonderful resource for all things technical and now that information is a little more open Google is often my "research tool" of choice. Just as I wouldn't buy a Lotus (car) because Lotus say's they're great I didn't buy a set of Power Cranks because Franks website says "they're great" (for the car stuff I'd see reviews in the SCCA and Grassroots Motorsports magazines)

As I'm not a "fitness professional" I don't have to be able to back up my claims nor do I have a paid obligation to do so - I only have to worry about how my training effects me, myself and I.

Having had a decade worth of training, and a few lab tests, from back in the 80's and 90's with a really good coach (and a subsequent decade off the bike which is why I'm kinda outa shape) I have lots of information with which to compare my current training and the results to - so I can say what works for me. I have a few binders full of Polar HR graphs and results from the days of yore and data taken from the newer CS600 that I can use to track changes, what works for me and what doesn't work so well.

But I can say, and my experiences have been the same as those who reported on various sites that showed long term use like Pezcyclingnews ( Josh Horrowitz, Stephen Cheung PhD and a few others), that despite no changes to my training schedule other than having to adapt to PowerCranks (which meant a 1 hour session became a 12x4 minute with a minute rest initially, not because I wanted too but because I had too) not only has my rate of progression increased (30% increase in VAM ft/hour on my "test" climb at the same weight) but I feel stronger, smoother and I don't suffer from back ache and ITB problems anymore. Whether these changes happened because I'd been training long enough and everything just clicked or whether they happened because I switched to PowerCranks for training I couldn't say for sure, however, that would be the mother of all coincidences... Either way I'm a happy camper - and it was all done under the knowledge that if I didn't like them after 11 weeks, I'd still have a week to be able to send them back for a full refund. Not a bad deal.

Plus I now have a set of fully adjustable cranks that even if I didn't want to have them independantly rotating I could lock them out. This of course opens up a whole opportunity for me to have fun testing....

But the whole point of this thread was supposed to be about whether or not training and monitoring power output was "better" than training and monitoring using HR or PE. Well, personally, I get enough feedback from my HR monitor and PE to do what I need... would having a power meter be useful, well, the data wouldn't be wasted it's just that for me it's not worth the extra $1000 - or $300 if I get the Polar power module. Would it make me faster doing what I'm doing right now - probably not. Would it help if I decide to start racing again and require feedback on what my HR monitor can't accuratly give me feedback from whats happening during really short intervals - I'm sure it would...

In flicking back through this thread I do have one burning question. If someone stole Franks bike and he had Powercranks installed, how the heck did they ride that thing away without a suitable pair of cycling shoes?

Fday

That has been the question asked by essentially every customer who has had their bike stolen. How did they get it away? One person is quite certain the criminal was after his bike specifically as other, more expensive bikes, but without PC's, were left behind but in most instance this is probably not the case. They are probably ignorant of what they were getting until they try to "ride" it. Would be "fun" to try to watch that first ride.

fergie

No bad reviews on Pez. Guess someone likes his toys.


And we have supplied a fairly decent amount of hard data to show that it does. Even a decent amount to show that training specificity is paramount and doing any form of cross training is probably holding back your progress. In fact Andy or Ric may be able to comment that the closer you try to replicate cycling the greater the interference to your pedalling style.

I would confidently wager that a well designed set of intervals targeting hill climbing would reap far greater rewards than doing any alternative form of intervals. You should try it. Though considering the forum we are posting in we would expect power data (unaltered) to confirm the results!

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

Fday

I am a little confused by your post. Are you implying that when one is using PowerCranks one is not really cycling but only "replicating" cycling? Or, that it is not possible to do "well-designed" intervals targeting hill climbing using PowerCranks, since you suggest he "should try it"?

LOL.

Fday

I guess I missed all the "hard data". Hard data I guess is subject to interpretation.

fergie

Sorry you must have missed that emg pic from the smart cranks and normal pedalling showing it was totally different. I wouldn't even call if replicating. Mimicking more like it. Plenty of good research showing training specificity is paramount.

Just the same as the studies I listed showing that SRM, Powertap and Polar do as they claim they do.

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

swampy1970

Funny that I was introduced to "well designed sets of intervals" back in 1986 when I met with my coach. He started doing "well designed sets of intervals" back in the days of yore and had papers published, quoting power, back in 1972. Using said intervals as well as other training, he's had riders finish top 20 in the Tour, national champions, commonweath games medal winners and all that good stuff....

... but one of the best things he passed on, was the ability to decipher what works for a rider and what doesn't. What's worthy of a test and what isn't.

If you want me to post power data, send me a power measuring device, or send me a set of QA-1 double adjustable coilover shocks for my old Camaro so I can free up my money for that project to a power measuring device.

But if you'd read any of my posts you would have noticed that my main priority right now is to get rid of my lard ass, which is why intervals aren't really what I'm looking at right now. But you're a coach, you should know that right. If I may humbly add, it looks like you could do with getting rid of a few pounds too.

Fday

I take substantial exception to those little EMG drawings from the SC page. It is some persons fantasy. To indicate that the HF muscles do no work now on regular cranks and that the hamstrings never get to relax on PC's is just pure BS. It was hardly worth commenting on until you brought it up. Anyhow, there is an actual study that has been perfomed looking at this very thing that I have been told has been accepted for publication. A power point presentation of what they have done is available here.

Actually, you don't need that little EMG drawing to understand that PC's are "totally different" and actually change how you pedal. They just are not as totally different as represented by the SC drawing. That is all marketing. It doesn't represent reality. All you have to do is get on a pair. Why do you presume different is worse? We say it is better. Where is your evidence we are wrong? And, exactly what is an EMG supposed to look like for "proper" cycling.

Anyhow, cycling is being on a bicycle and making the cranks go around to make the bike go forward. Wouldn't that be a good definition of "cycling". What is your evidence of what the EMG should look like for a "proper" cycling action?

Swampy is, I am sure, getting a big kick out of your pronouncements.

Alex Simmons

now ain't that a good quote

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

swampy1970

I'm not sure of too many pieces of equipment that require randomized controlled trials.....

Equipment such as wheels, frames, regular cranks, brakes etc normally only require normal mechanical or aerodynamic testing. Show me some randomized controlled trials on those... As I said in another post, sources such as Cycling Science were great, but there's plenty of test results available out there.

I bought a comfy lightweight saddle a while back to replace the aging San Marco Regal whose foam had lost it's "spring" - should I have sought the advice of a double blind, randomized controlled trial on the opinions of 265 pairs of buttock cheeks? Of course I didn't. Nor would I for most of the equipment that adorns my bike.... I read a few reviews, took a look at what seems to be popular with the Pros and used past experience with prior purchases. I've had good luck with Specialized (trispoke wheels, shoes, helmets etc) so I bought one of their Toupe saddles. I now have a happy ass.

I can see methods of training requiring randomized controlled studies to prove the concept of the training. Of course I'm talking about the actual training and not the methods of monitoring....

Fday

Of course, what I originally asked was whether the method of monitoring of the actual training makes a difference. You would have thought I had asked of what proof is there of God in front of the Pope, for all the furor. It was a simple question that invoked a lot of emotion.

fergie

Umm the studies I listed showing a difference between experienced cyclists and untrained and between cyclists and triathletes doing a similar training load on the bike. Would appear the more cycling you do makes you better at cycling or the less things interfering with cycling (like training for running and swimming) make you a better cyclist. You convieniently missed those as well.

Some good research on very simple skills like using a weighted basketball doesn't improve ones ability to throw a normal basketball or using a weighted baseball bat doesn't improve ones ability to hit the ball any further.

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

Alex Simmons

Mostly hilarity.

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