Cycling Forums › Forums › Bikes › Power Training › What is the evidence that training with power is superior to . . .
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

What is the evidence that training with power is superior to . . . - Page 33

post #481 of 576
9/4/08 at 10:12pm

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

Quote:
Originally Posted by daveryanwyoming
I see the gist of the study, compare efficacy of a particular interval routine between riders with PM feedback and those with HRMs or those relying on RPE. It's a start but it only answers the question of whether a PM, HRM or RPE produces better results with that interval routine. Say you choose some sort of micro Tabata set with really short hard intervals, hard to say whether the PM will make any difference as it's tough to even glance at the display or modulate your power short hard efforts. I suspect the study is structured better than that, but still it doesn't really answer the question posed in the title of this thread. But then the OP wasn't looking for an answer, it's pretty obvious he was trolling.

-Dave
Quote:
Originally Posted by daveryanwyoming
I guess so... must be subliminal since I don't even remember commenting on Tabata's and I definitely haven't been using them but maybe I really want to suffer in short bursts and haven't admitted it yet

Where'd I mention them? I really don't remember.
-Dave
Maybe you have a doppleganger that is posting these or you're getting "old timers disease" like me.
Reply
Reply
post #482 of 576
9/4/08 at 10:20pm

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

Quote:
Originally Posted by Felt_Rider
Maybe you have a doppleganger that is posting these or you're getting "old timers disease" like me.
Ahh, the evil twin theory.

I definitely knew about the most recent reference, it was the other two in the past week that confuse me. Not saying I didn't use the word, I do suffer from that Ole timers disease, just I can't remember it at all.....
Reply
Reply
post #483 of 576
9/5/08 at 12:25pm

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

Quote:
Originally Posted by daveryanwyoming
I definitely knew about the most recent reference, it was the other two in the past week that confuse me. Not saying I didn't use the word, I do suffer from that Ole timers disease, just I can't remember it at all.....
OK, maybe I'm the one with the bad memory. I found one but apparently there isn't another here or on Wattage (which is all I've been paying attention to lately). Sorry!
Reply
Reply
post #484 of 576
9/5/08 at 12:45pm

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

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve_B
OK, maybe I'm the one with the bad memory. I found one but apparently there isn't another here or on Wattage (which is all I've been paying attention to lately). Sorry!
No worries, I've been following the wattage thread closely since it's an interesting topic, but haven't really had anything to offer to that thread. But I guess that's why it's on my mind.....

-Dave
Reply
Reply
post #485 of 576
9/8/08 at 1:44pm
Thread Starter 

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

Quote:
Originally Posted by midastouch
Yes the debate and the marketing are awfully rhetorical and generally lacking a good empirical base. We have no delusions about answering all of the complexities of the question(s) in a single study. We will begin to answer one piece of the puzzle. I've been a researcher for a long time and I realize how difficult it is to change people's opinions with or without convincing data. We will attempt to show, for a given type of well researched interval training, whether HR-based, or Power-based methods result in significantly different Vo2, LT, or TT outcomes. We determined that to be the best place to start the investigations because interval training is really the only type of training that has received good emprical support in the scientific literature. I have no vested interest in either technology being determined superior to another. I own and use both power and HR devices. They are fun, I like the data, but I really don't know that I am a better cyclist because of the use of either of them. And more importantly, I know that extrapolating from my own personal experience to draw conclusions about devices and people in general, is just about the worst form of science!
Looks like you are making a good first stab at, at least, asking the question. Congratulation. Hopefully, your data will give a good first, tentative, answer to the question. If so, I suspect, that many here will not like the answer but we shall find out. I look forward to seeing your data.
Reply
Reply
post #486 of 576
9/8/08 at 1:53pm
Thread Starter 

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

Quote:
Originally Posted by RChung
Hmmm. You could give everyone the tool but add a random error to some so they'd lie to the rider (compared to the control PMs) from ride to ride. I'd think the virtue of a measuring device (whether PM or HRM) is that it lets one refine and then exploit the relationship between dose and response. Suppose you were trying to lose weight and you bought a crappy bathroom scale. You might not be able to tell whether you got better results from eating celery sticks or ice cream.
Actually, I think you could make sense of whether you were losing weight (or what your weight actually was) from a bathroom scale with random errors in it since, if you measured everyday, the errors would average out (if the errors were truly random). One would simply have to look at the average over a 2 week period or so to see what was happening. Since weight loss occurs slowly, this would not present much of a burden to following this trend.

It is not necessary to put random errors into the power meter to answer this question (in fact, it would be counter productive) since one isn't asking the question as to whether training with a power meter works. One wants to know if training with a power meter is better than "equivalent" training using other forms of training intensity feedback.
Reply
Reply
post #487 of 576
9/8/08 at 7:49pm

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

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fday
One wants to know if training with a power meter is better than "equivalent" training using other forms of training intensity feedback.
That may be what *you* want to know, but everyone else here has already acknowledged that if you do the equivalent training then you should expect equivalent results, regardless of the feedback tool.

As has been pointed out probably a hundred times on this thread alone, the benefit of properly using a power meter is that one probably wouldn't do the "equivalent" training as if they were using one of the other commonly available devices*.

* - 101.
Reply
Reply
post #488 of 576
9/8/08 at 7:53pm

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

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fday
Actually, I think you could make sense of whether you were losing weight (or what your weight actually was) from a bathroom scale with random errors in it since, if you measured everyday, the errors would average out (if the errors were truly random). One would simply have to look at the average over a 2 week period or so to see what was happening. Since weight loss occurs slowly, this would not present much of a burden to following this trend.
You're making the non-random error of thinking that random errors have zero mean.
Reply
Reply
post #489 of 576
9/9/08 at 1:39pm
Thread Starter 

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

Quote:
Originally Posted by frenchyge
That may be what *you* want to know, but everyone else here has already acknowledged that if you do the equivalent training then you should expect equivalent results, regardless of the feedback tool.

As has been pointed out probably a hundred times on this thread alone, the benefit of properly using a power meter is that one probably wouldn't do the "equivalent" training as if they were using one of the other commonly available devices*.

* - 101.
While everyone here may assume that a PM helps them to do better training compared to using other methods for assessing training intensity, the reason for actually doing the study is to see if this hypothesis is valid or not.

Further, your statement requires "proper" use of a PM without defining what "proper" use entails for them to "probably" to see benefit. Of course, if this study shows there to be no difference you can just say they didn't use it "properly", making the result invalid. Define what you mean by "proper" use now so we can know if this study needs to be repeated using a different protocol should it show no benefit to a PM over other methods.

This is not an unreasonable request. I put forth what "proper" use of PowerCranks entails to see optimum benefit and I criticize so-called studies that supposedly show no benefits to using the device for failing to use them "properly". I think the same could be said of any study looking at any training device or technique. It should be used in accordance with the best method when assessing its utility. This would also go for the use of the HR monitor or perceived exertion or anything else the PM is being compared to. A poorly designed and run study hardly has any value.
Reply
Reply
post #490 of 576
9/9/08 at 3:12pm

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

13 pages and 490 posts and I wonder if anyone (not a fake customer) has purchased even one set of PCs as a result of this thread. If you have, please post here. On the other hand, if you will never purchase PCs as a result of this thread or for any other reason, you might as well post as well.

I'll start:

Won't Buy List

1. Squint
Reply
Reply
post #491 of 576
9/9/08 at 3:44pm

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

Quote:
Originally Posted by Squint
13 pages and 490 posts and I wonder if anyone (not a fake customer) has purchased even one set of PCs as a result of this thread. If you have, please post here. On the other hand, if you will never purchase PCs as a result of this thread or for any other reason, you might as well post as well.

I'll start:

Won't Buy List

1. Squint
Since the start of this thread I bought a power meter even if there is a "lack of evidence" as some would ponder.
Reply
Reply
post #492 of 576
9/9/08 at 4:50pm

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

Quote:
Originally Posted by Squint
13 pages and 490 posts and I wonder if anyone (not a fake customer) has purchased even one set of PCs as a result of this thread.
Try 33 pages...

Frank has displayed a wonderful capability for talking (typing) in perfect circles in this thread. I wonder if that perfect circle capability that he has came from using a Power Keyboard (TM)? What is the evidence that a PK is better than any other keyboard? Can we have a study?
Reply
Reply
post #493 of 576
9/12/08 at 11:37am

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

I've used power for 7 years and was discussing how useful power is with Juerg Feldmann @ FaCT. He wrote this to me, please enjoy:-

"Power tap is a very nice tool , as is a heart rate monitor or a lactate analyser and so on.

Power can be used perfect for high intensity work outs like intervalls in the time area of 15 - 30 sec perhaps up to 1 min . because HR has a too long lag for that.

Using % of power is about the same as using % of max HR and % of VO2 max and % of a not existing lactate value.

% are mathematical informations , needed to finish your PhD or what ever work.

The human body is not a motor and the wattage are not always the same intensity . Here just to give you some idea.
Results of a top world class MTB person. Tested on Taxc wattage trainer.
Test 1: 1 min intervalls ( conconi type test.
LBP wattage 450
LBP HR 165
Max Watt 540
Max HR 179

Test 2 FaCT classical test 3 min intervalls
LBP wattage 390
LBP HR 163
Max Watt 460
Max HR 184

Field test : After resting days
HR 155- 160 duration 2 h
Fixed HR first hour wattage 370 - 380
dropped after 70 min to 350 - 360
dropped after 1 h 45 min to 340 - 350
Lactate stable always below 1.5 / ammonia stable, blood glucose stable

Same training after 2 days of training .
45 min 360 - 370 start to drop after 45 min 340 - 350
after 1h 15 drop to 320 - 330 and stayed there.
In a recovered stage that would be a HR of 140 +- which would have been in the FFA zone.
Lactate always below 1.5 . Ammonia very high , blood sugar low 4.0 ( nearly hypoglyc.)
Summary . Wattage is an external info (physical info ) assuming that our body is like a motor.
It does not take in consideration , that the fuel tanks ( liver / muscles ) may be differently loaded, as it does not take in consideration , that certain body systems ( brain ) may be "fatigued' or in recovery stage and can't contribute the same amount of energy and help to produce this power.

Summary : for longer trainings the power has to be put in combination with HR and if possible with respiratory rate and some metabolic info. Alone it is just wattage with very little help of knowing what you stressed with that particular workout.

340 wattage can be one day perfect STF limit training with good respiration and good RPM . in a fatigued stage of any of the systems 340 can be a "surviving " intensity with FTF to help , high lactate and high HR and an overload of RR. Yes it still was 340 wattage but with a completely different stress on your system . So you may have to try to put the usage of wattage into another more open view of what wattage realy is ".
Reply
Reply
post #494 of 576
9/12/08 at 12:54pm

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

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fday
While everyone here may assume that a PM helps them to do better training compared to using other methods for assessing training intensity, the reason for actually doing the study is to see if this hypothesis is valid or not.
How would it do that when all the participants are doing the same training?

What people here commonly assert is that using a PM changes the way they train.*

* - 102


Quote:
Originally Posted by robuk
I've used power for 7 years and was discussing how useful power is with Juerg Feldmann @ FaCT.
If you were trying to argue that one should train at the same wattage every day, then I'd say Juerg definitely won that one.

Did he have any insight on which devices tell someone to lower the target intensity when they are training while hypoglycemic or fatigued? I typically eat before a ride, and use TSB as an indicator of my fatigue level going into a ride (with my PM).
Reply
Reply
post #495 of 576
12/1/09 at 7:09am

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

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fday View Post
training with any other effort/intensity feedback system such as HR, perceived exertion, stopwatch, etc.

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.
After reading every page, i'm confused - which one is better? the evidence doesn't appear to exist.
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Power Training
Cycling Forums › Forums › Bikes › Power Training › What is the evidence that training with power is superior to . . .