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

Steve_B

Somewhere beyond the precision of a powermeter, since the precision of a PM is better than an HRM or RPE and we're all doing better with PMs.

Steve_B

No method of training. It's an instrument, not an enforcer. Just like a speedometer on your car, a water flow meter or power meter on your house, it's pretty useful.

You used to be an anesthesiologist. So do you think it would be better to not measure oxygen flow to patients? Should we let the patient on the operating table tell us when it's "good enough"? Should the anesthesiologist monitor the patient by HR and PE alone?

asgelle

Who said anything about mine being the only evidence? And you were the one who set the bar as evidence to suggest. Don't ask a question and then when you get an answer you don't like, try to act as if it doesn't exist.

Steve_B

Frank, that's an experiment that I want you to do: get a power meter. Find out what you're missing. Then you'll know what's best.

Steve_B

Fday

I have no personal bias on this issue. If it is an extremely effective tool over traditional techniques the benefits should become obvious to everyone. If it is a marginally effective tool, the benefits will be hard to see although the bell curve dictates some users will see huge improvements and will hype the product as a result. As near as I can tell the bulk of the evidence suggests the tool provides little, if any, benefit despite all the anecdotal rave reviews given the tool by the advocates.

I did a video interview with one of my athletes, Xterra world champion Conrad Stoltz (available on my home page if you care to check it out), and I asked him if he had any power numbers to report, hoping I could get some to report to the masses who seem to believe improvement can only be documented by power number improvement. Surprisingly, he said he used to train with an SRM but stopped, not being able to do both when he went to PowerCranks. So, he used to train with power then reverts to mostly perceived exertion and HR after PC's, and he is the dominant world champ. He certainly saw no overwhelming benefit to the tool. In my attempt to gather power data regarding my product I have been surprised by how many elites do not use the tool (or started using it after PC's so there is no baseline data for us).

To try to convince me of the usefulness of the tool by simply telling me lots of people use it is hardly compelling because lots of people of similar ability don't. Of course, you advocates don't talk to them. What do they know? If there was a substantial benefit I would expect the users to dominate the non-users. I don't see it.

Fday

I have had a PM, a power tap. The bike got stolen and I haven't had any desire to replace it. Bunch of data that might or might not be useful were I serious about training and racing. I understand athletes like to angst over this stuff. I did it when I was reasonably serious. Whether it does them any good is open to question.

Fday

Actually, few anesthesiologists actually measure oxygen flow to the patient, they simply measure oxygen flow to the circuit which is usually about 10 times greater than the patient is actually utilizing and they measure oxygen concentration in the system. I was one of the few advocates of closed circuit anesthesia, which actually does measure actual oxygen flow to the patient. I adovcated it because I thought it gave you additional important data to enhance patient safety, helped the patient to stay warm, and was less polluting of the atmosphere, and other benefits. Extra data and extra work is worth it if it actually provides real benefit. It is not if it just makes the job more complicated because, in anesthesia, that will generally compromise patient safety.

The question here is: there are other instruments that attempt to monitor effort and intensity. Is there any "good" evidence to suggest the PM is better than these other instruments.

Fday

Here is part of my original post. "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."

I guess I was hoping that such a statement might result in more than just more anecdotal evidence to support the device. In other words, I had hoped my request "set the bar" a little higher. Guess it didn't. Sorry.

asgelle

Someone's hacked into your account and is posting under your name. You might want to check it out.

Post #36
"Use whatever term you wish. Is there any evidence to suggest that either training by power or training with a power meter is more successful over traditional techniques?" (emphasis added)

dkrenik

Troll...

bbrauer

Ah yes! Trolls! Every internet forum has to have at least one. But we still love ya.

I'm assuming you're asking if there's any evidence in the literature to suggest that rider A who uses a power meter makes better improvement in performance than Rider B who does not.

But you see, the whole premise of your question is flawed. The power meter is just an a feedback instrument. It doesn't do the training for you, obviously. A cyclist, and by that I'm describing a biological human speciman, improves fitness and performance by actually performing work that results in strain, which consequently results in adaptation. It's as simple as that.

The power meter is just a newer device that does a better job at answering that question, "How much?" It doesn't perform any work; and there are plenty of cyclists who have a power meter and train poorly, just as there are plenty without who train much more intelligently. The power meter, by virtue of the fact it provides you with more accurate information, enables you to train more intelligently. The actual intelligent training is still up to you.

I could go on an highlight the many ways a power meter provides useful metrics of performance measurement, but you already mentioned you understood all those reasons, so they don't warrant repeating. I would, however like to ask you a question if I may: What exactly was your point in starting this thread?

__________________
www.liquidfitness.com

Steve_B

a) You just completely ignored the fact that I called you on your shit above. You want non-anecdotal evidence from us but then anecdotal evidence for your product is fine. With this post and the previous one where I originally called you on your shit, that's two citings of anecdotal evidence from you. Great Frank. This like talking to my father who has dementia.

b) You have completely changed the focus of this thread. You wanted demonstrative evidence that "the way of training with a power meter" is better than other methods. Once we told you repeatedly that it imposes no specific way of training, it might just be sinking in and now instead you want evidence that the precision of a PM is necessary. So exactly what is it you want (today)? Do you see your needs changing in the next 12 hours? Just curious.

c) If you didn't see the benefits when you were using one, one would have to ask how you were using it. What were your expectations? It doesn't make you a better rider just by being in its proximity. You still have to pedal your bike and all that.

The power meter imposes no more specific way of training than a speedometer does. Anything can be applied well or poorly. I could equally ask you what evidence do you have that RPE is superior to other methods. It's an equally misguided question to the one you asked originally because RPE doesn't dictate how you train.

So you can get great results with RPE and shitty results with a PM. You could also get exactly the opposite too. What does that prove? Basically nothing. It not the instrument, it's how you train. The PM only aids in the training. A completely inappropriate training plan that uses a PM is still an inappropriate training plan. The fact that a PM is used doesn't kiss it and make it better.

d) As for your comment "If there was a substantial benefit I would expect the users to dominate the non-users. I don't see it." - Did you consider that cost is a factor for amateurs? They are not cheap. Plus Euro teams tend to be stuck in their ways, but they are coming around. I look around me at races and I see more and more PMs every year. Don't you think that SRM, Saris, Ergomo and Polar would have gotten out of the business if there there wasn't a growing market for them? Why would even more companies be trying to get into the market if there wasn't a growing demand (e.g. Quark)? There is a growing a market acceptance and that is undeniable. I can't say that the majority of riders will have them some day (maybe in 30 years though) but PM's are not going away.

Steve_B