Pedaling Efficiently

jollyrogers said:

"Strawman" means misrepresenting your opponent's position and then arguing against that misrepresentation e.g. arguing that races are not won solely by power meter numbers when no one has tried to say that such was the case.

What you consider to be logical sequels to his cycling questions are:

jollyrogers said:

I look forward to the logical sequels to your cycling question:

"Swimmers, what is the evidence that using the pool clock when timing your laps is superior to ignoring said clock"

"Track runners, what is the evidence that timing your laps is superior to running by feel"

But notice that his actual question is "Cyclists, what is the evidence that using a powermeter is superior to old methods of training?"
Now, in your questions the phrase "what is the evidence" is closely followed by something that actually determines the outcome of a race(timing of laps, the pool). In his question, "what is the evidence" is followed by something that noone says determines the winner of the race.

Enriss said:

But notice that his actual question is "Cyclists, what is the evidence that using a powermeter is superior to old methods of training?"

The problem is there is no method of power training. Training hasn't changed from a mix of endurance training, interval training and sprint training. Some love to complicate things by throwing up special techniques like big gear work or toys like Gimmickcranks.

A Power meter is the tool used to measure the propulsion of the bike. It doesn't measure the resistance one rides against, the nutritional/hydration status, motivation or physiological effect of riding so anyone claiming winning bike races is just a matter of producing the best numbers is deluding themselves as much as Frank is claiming that Gimmickcranks improve the ability to propel the bike or using a "special" technique of pedaling confers any advantage over just mashing the pedals.

In the case of the OP he will pedal better when he learns to mash better as do top track riders (see the Biomechanics section of High-Tech Cycling for more info) who deliver the highest power outputs through the smallest section of the pedal stroke than any other area of cycling.

Enriss said:

What you consider to be logical sequels to his cycling questions are:

But notice that his actual question is "Cyclists, what is the evidence that using a powermeter is superior to old methods of training?"
Now, in your questions the phrase "what is the evidence" is closely followed by something that actually determines the outcome of a race(timing of laps, the pool). In his question, "what is the evidence" is followed by something that noone says determines the winner of the race.

In a TT (the most similar discipline to pool swimming and arguably more similar to running than mass start cycling), the rider with the highest ratio of W:CdA wins the race.

In a pool and to a lesser extent, on a track, the conditions are highly repeatable (especially an indoor track) and very similar between training sessions and between training and racing, making timing an effective measure.

In cycling, environmental conditions have a much greater effect on time to cover a distance since wind resistance is much greater and road surfaces and terrain are much more variable. In cycling time is a much less effective proxy for work done than actually measuring work/time.

In other words, time in swimming or running is effectively equivalent to power in cycling.

No, time in swimming or running is effectively equivalent to time in cycling.

Enriss said:

No, time in swimming or running is effectively equivalent to time in cycling.

If you knew anything about cycling you would know that the external demands of cycling are far more varied than for running and swimming. Also sure runners and swimmers would love a better metric of training stimulus than just a stopwatch. Both use lactate but not quite as practical, valid or reliable when compared to the use of a power meter in cycling.

fergie said:

The problem is there is no method of power training. Training hasn't changed from a mix of endurance training, interval training and sprint training. Some love to complicate things by throwing up special techniques like big gear work or toys like Gimmickcranks.

A Power meter is the tool used to measure the propulsion of the bike. It doesn't measure the resistance one rides against, the nutritional/hydration status, motivation or physiological effect of riding so anyone claiming winning bike races is just a matter of producing the best numbers is deluding themselves as much as Frank is claiming that Gimmickcranks improve the ability to propel the bike or using a "special" technique of pedaling confers any advantage over just mashing the pedals.

In the case of the OP he will pedal better when he learns to mash better as do top track riders (see the Biomechanics section of High-Tech Cycling for more info) who deliver the highest power outputs through the smallest section of the pedal stroke than any other area of cycling.

Fergie, let me revise my question. What is the evidence that adding a power meter into the training milleau improves eventual power and performance over what it would otherwise have been using other techniques? I have simply asked what the evidence is to support the contention of many that outcome is improved if one has one. I have nothing against power. More power generally means more speed. But, the power is what it is whether one knows the number or not.

And, as regards your last paragraph perhaps you could explain figure 4 (see below) out of Coyle, Feltner, et. al, Physiological and biomechanical factors associated with elite endurance cycling performance. I know we have been over this before but apparently you keep forgetting.

In this study two categories of riders were examined based upon their time-trial performance. The elite national class group and the state class group. According to your contention above, the OP would get better if he could learn to "mash better as do top track riders . . . who deliver the highest power outputs through the smallest section of the pedal stroke than any other area of cycling." By this criteria, the two best riders in this group should be riders D and J. Yet, they were only the 4th and 10th fastest riders over 40 km of this group of 15. Rider J seems to be particularly problematical for this point of view. He was the 2nd best masher but still found himself in the slower, state class, group. But, I am sure you have a ready explanation. Oh, and there is the problem of rider A, the fastest of all by far (about a minute faster than the next) who maintains positive power almost around the entire circle, missing just a little.

Enriss said:

No, time in swimming or running is effectively equivalent to time in cycling.

That's where we will have to agree to disagree.

When I was training as a triathlete, I did a monthly 1K swim TT. I also participated in a monthly local cycling TT series. Both of these were in preparation for an Ironman Tri.

The conditions in the pool were nearly identical every month, water temp, no current, no drafting. If my time dropped, it was because I was becoming more fit.

At the monthly TT there was much greater variability between races. Temperature, wind, and the height of the corn in the fields bordering the course. Even given equal wind velocity and direction on the TT course, as the corn grew higher it blocked significantly more wind. On that course, a faster time did not necessarily indicate greater fitness or that my training was progressing as desired. OTOH, my power meter provided me objective data as to whether I was actually becoming more fit.

Fday said:

Fergie, let me revise my question. What is the evidence that adding a power meter into the training milleau improves eventual power and performance over what it would otherwise have been using other techniques?

There isn't any Frank. Now my turn, without a power meter, how can a cyclist objectively determine the amount of improvement in fitness.

fergie said:

If you knew anything about cycling you would know that the external demands of cycling are far more varied than for running and swimming. Also sure runners and swimmers would love a better metric of training stimulus than just a stopwatch. Both use lactate but not quite as practical, valid or reliable when compared to the use of a power meter in cycling.

I think the powermeter is a great tool for training, but I don't think that races are won by the numbers measured on a powermeter. All races that I can think of are won by the numbers measured on stopwatches. The only other cycling events I can think of are measured by total distance over a fixed time interval.
This doesn't diminish the importance of powermeters as a tool for preparing a cyclist, but that's not even what I'm arguing about.

jollyrogers said:

OTOH, my power meter provided me objective data as to whether I was actually becoming more fit.

Yes, and again we agree, races are won by times measured on stopwatches, not total power output measured by powermeters, but you were just drawing comparisons between powermeters and the instruments used to decide winners in swimming and running. Inappropriate comparison.

jollyrogers said:

There isn't any Frank. Now my turn, without a power meter, how can a cyclist objectively determine the amount of improvement in fitness.

There are lots of ways. Probably the easiest and most often used is repeated time-trial efforts over time over the same course under similar conditions. And, if you are simply looking at fitness, resting heart rate is a good, objective, measure.

Fday said:

Fergie, let me revise my question. What is the evidence that adding a power meter into the training milleau improves eventual power and performance over what it would otherwise have been using other techniques? I have simply asked what the evidence is to support the contention of many that outcome is improved if one has one. I have nothing against power. More power generally means more speed. But, the power is what it is whether one knows the number or not.

Yes we do see improved outcomes between those who train with power meters and those who don't even if they follow the same programmes (remember using a power meter isn't a training method). With the power meter we are better able to set training zones and to determine how a rider is responding to the training dose. Using a the power profile we can see what areas they need to target, the performance manager allows us determine if the training dose is right and how long a taper we need to use and the effect of different training blocks. What other form of testing allows this?

Quoted post said:

And, as regards your last paragraph perhaps you could explain figure 4 (see below) out of Coyle, Feltner, et. al, Physiological and biomechanical factors associated with elite endurance cycling performance. I know we have been over this before but apparently you keep forgetting.

That's comical coming from the King of Ignoring Ideas Contrary to your Marketing Plan.

Yet, they were only the 4th and 10th fastest riders over 40 km of this group of 15. Rider J seems to be particularly problematical for this point of view. He was the 2nd best masher but still found himself in the slower, state class, group. But, I am sure you have a ready explanation. Oh, and there is the problem of rider A, the fastest of all by far (about a minute faster than the next) who maintains positive power almost around the entire circle, missing just a little.[/QUOTE]

Think I have said elsewhere today that Cherry picking two subjects from a study should not form the basis of a theory of pedalling. Read the section of High-Tech Cycling on Biomechanics.

Enriss said:

I think the powermeter is a great tool for training, but I don't think that races are won by the numbers measured on a powermeter. All races that I can think of are won by the numbers measured on stopwatches. The only other cycling events I can think of are measured by total distance over a fixed time interval.

Again shows your ignorance of cycling. Most races are won by the person who gets to the line first. Times are irrelevant in many events.

Quoted post said:

Yes, and again we agree, races are won by times measured on stopwatches, not total power output measured by powermeters, but you were just drawing comparisons between powermeters and the instruments used to decide winners in swimming and running. Inappropriate comparison.

Not really, in cycling we have a measure of the propulsion impulse. What equivalent is there in Swimming or Running. Heck in cycling a rider can use a Power meter to try to use as little power as possible to win an event. Riders in the TdF use their meter to conserve energy in the flatter stages. You don't need a power meter to ride conservatively but at least using one means you can actually measure how well you did.

Fday said:

There are lots of ways. Probably the easiest and most often used is repeated time-trial efforts over time over the same course under similar conditions. And, if you are simply looking at fitness, resting heart rate is a good, objective, measure.

Nope Frank, remember in cycling there are numerous environmental conditions to account for in cycling. Even on an indoor track each lap can vary with lines held, pacing, position, energy/hydration status, temperature, others riders circulating around etc. Take it on the road and the conditions vary so much that repeated tests are pointless compared to using a power meter.

Fday said:

There are lots of ways. Probably the easiest and most often used is repeated time-trial efforts over time over the same course under similar conditions. And, if you are simply looking at fitness, resting heart rate is a good, objective, measure.

Repeated TT efforts over the same course are good, given similar environmentals. What if one can't regularly obtain consistent conditions? I live in a flat coastal area where the wind is generally blowing, but the direction and velocity vary quite a bit day-to-day. My job precludes me being able to get to a good TT course whenever I want, so there isn't always the option of driving to open roads because the weather matches what it was the last time or two.

OTOH, with my power meter, every time I hit that course, I get objective feedback of my performance. I don't really have to worry about what the wind is doing. Given these restrictions, wouldn't you agree that power is a superior measure of fitness/performance than time?

Re: resting hear rate, isn't that more of an indicator of cardiovascular fitness, VO2max, rather than metabolic, sport-specific fitness?

Enriss said:

I think the powermeter is a great tool for training, but I don't think that races are won by the numbers measured on a powermeter.

Every TT is won by the rider who produces the most watts/drag (flat TT) or watts/kg (uphill TT) for the duration of the effort, given consistent environmental conditions during the event.

jollyrogers said:

Every TT is won by the rider who produces the most watts/drag (flat TT) or watts/kg (uphill TT) for the duration of the effort, given consistent environmental conditions during the event.

In fairness a bit more to it than that. Choice of equipment, choice of gears, riding the fastest line, being able to attain an aero position, being injury free, well fuelled, well hydrated, not over hydrated, choosing a smooth section of road to ride on, technique through the turn, pacing at start and pacing out of the turn could lead to time differences between two riders with similar power/frontal areas/weight.

fergie said:

Nope Frank, remember in cycling there are numerous environmental conditions to account for in cycling. Even on an indoor track each lap can vary with lines held, pacing, position, energy/hydration status, temperature, others riders circulating around etc. Take it on the road and the conditions vary so much that repeated tests are pointless compared to using a power meter.

Oh, phooey. The objective measure I mentioned may not be as precise as a PM but they are an objective measure. If one rides the same loop everyday at the same time one soon learns that their time on that loop will seldom vary by more than 30 seconds. But, if one looks at the time this week vs a month or two months earlier a definit trend may be apparent.

Anyhow, it is a fact that very many elite cyclists currently do not use a PM for either racing or training and a fact that before the availability of power meters many cyclists reached exremely competent levels. We can infer from these facts that either alternative objective measures of fitness exist or that measures of fitness make no difference at all.

In view of the above, if a PM makes a difference one would expect that difference to be small. Either way, there is no evidence (other than anecdotal evidence) that using a PM makes any difference at all.

fergie said:

Again shows your ignorance of cycling. Most races are won by the person who gets to the line first. Times are irrelevant in many events.

Getting to the line first and getting there in the least amount of time are the same thing in a race where everyone starts at the same time, and if they don't, I'm still right. You're just being difficult.

fergie said:

Not really, in cycling we have a measure of the propulsion impulse. What equivalent is there in Swimming or Running. Heck in cycling a rider can use a Power meter to try to use as little power as possible to win an event. Riders in the TdF use their meter to conserve energy in the flatter stages. You don't need a power meter to ride conservatively but at least using one means you can actually measure how well you did.

And here you're just ignoring the context the post came up in.

jollyrogers said:

Every TT is won by the rider who produces the most watts/drag (flat TT) or watts/kg (uphill TT) for the duration of the effort, given consistent environmental conditions during the event.

Oh, so we just say the time trialist who takes the least amount of time to complete the course wins because it's easier to measure? Sort of like how the sun goes around the earth, but we'll allow you crazy Galileo types to assume it's the other way around since that way requires less calculation!

Fday said:

Oh, phooey. The objective measure I mentioned may not be as precise as a PM but they are an objective measure.

Seeing the Devil is in the details some of us like precision. Makes things like assessing what bike components to use rather handy.

Quoted post said:

If one rides the same loop everyday at the same time one soon learns that their time on that loop will seldom vary by more than 30 seconds. But, if one looks at the time this week vs a month or two months earlier a definit trend may be apparent.

We have a local 50km loop where conditions holding power constant the time varies by up to 5mins. For those of us who like precision such a variance is unacceptable. An unethical coach could start training a rider in winter and claim that it's the coaching making them go faster when it is really the weather in just the same way that many coaches test young riders and claim the wattage improvements as proof of the coaching when it's more likely to be natural maturation.

Quoted post said:

Anyhow, it is a fact that very many elite cyclists currently do not use a PM for either racing or training and a fact that before the availability of power meters many cyclists reached exremely competent levels. We can infer from these facts that either alternative objective measures of fitness exist or that measures of fitness make no difference at all.

Again Cherry Picking random examples like that serves no purpose. Perhaps they would do better with a Power Meter.

Quoted post said:

In view of the above, if a PM makes a difference one would expect that difference to be small. Either way, there is no evidence (other than anecdotal evidence) that using a PM makes any difference at all.

Only in your little dream world. What you chose to ignore only makes you look more foolish.

Enriss said:

Oh, so we just say the time trialist who takes the least amount of time to complete the course wins because it's easier to measure? Sort of like how the sun goes around the earth, but we'll allow you crazy Galileo types to assume it's the other way around since that way requires less calculation!

Um, Galileo supported heliocentrism Enriss. He deconstructed what factors went into the sun "traveling" from east to west across the sky. Power production and drag are the two dominant factors that emerge when one deconstructs the time it takes to get to the finish line, so if you want to call me a Galileo type that's fine with me, but what does that make you?