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

[rmur17]

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

okay ... here's my own very ugly Power-Duration curve data on what I call the short-end of the curve: 3-min to 60-min.

History: very boring but I started training and raced in '88 (age 25) winning the Atlantic Prov. RR champs that year - equal to a single state RR in the U.S I'd say. No TT held so I can't claim that! Next got sick and lost a bunch of weight - started lifting weights and over-compensated. No riding of any note until '94. from that point on I slowly built up my conditioning again and lost weight to the ~190lb mark (from ~250). Each year I logged from 400-650 hrs on the bike - some years quite structured and I raced local TTs and road races, others work was too busy and I did not race at all, but every single year I logged at least 400hrs on the bike.

In 2002, work slacked off and I really buckled down to training again. Logged close to 700hrs that year (~21,500km) and raced local TT's and tri relays to good effect. That fall my reg. t/p did two long distance triathlon's and did quite well. I felt like I was in my best shape ever (age 39).

I'd been following the old Wattage list for some time then and figured that given the long winters here a CT would be a great benefit. Got a decent deal on one and in Nov. 2002 did a series of benchmark tests which established what I termed my 'baseline' Power-Duration curve. At that time, I had no idea whether I could progress 5W from that level, 10W from that level or even hold that level given what I'd read about the effects on aging.

On the attached graph the Nov.2002 levels are shown in light blue on the lower portion of the graph. Indoor 30MP ~ outdoor FTP for me so at that time FTP was around 325W.

The dark blue and yellow lines above represent current AP and NP power-duration bests (set about three weeks ago) and the Reds are simply stretch targets that I may never, ever reach .. but I said the same thing 5-6 years ago!

By following the guidelines of a certain well-known ex. Phys. known to post here , and being willing and foolish enough to experiment and push myself over the edge from time to time, and by reading and learning what I could, I ended up gaining ~100W across the board over that time.

On an FTP basis, around 420W vs. 325W (+30%) starting off from what i believe most would call a "well-trained" state.

Yeah, yeah I know that's not 40% over six months on PC's but it is what it is.

Would I give up training with power? No way ... Would a mariner give up GPS and go back to the sextant? Same concept really. A superior tool is a superior tool. If you can't figure out how to make good use of it, find someone who can and hire them (or buy a training program ).

This all being said, I fully realize this is not scientific evidence. But how to obtain that?

Who would be stupid enough to go back to the sextant now? Or sandglass? Or sundial? Or HRM? But they all sort of worked, didn't they?

Better is better.

 

[acoggan]

Better is better.

^TM.

 

[Fday]

okay ... here's my own very ugly Power-Duration curve data on what I call the short-end of the curve: 3-min to 60-min.

History: very boring but I started training and raced in '88 (age 25) winning the Atlantic Prov. RR champs that year - equal to a single state RR in the U.S I'd say. No TT held so I can't claim that! Next got sick and lost a bunch of weight - started lifting weights and over-compensated. No riding of any note until '94. from that point on I slowly built up my conditioning again and lost weight to the ~190lb mark (from ~250). Each year I logged from 400-650 hrs on the bike - some years quite structured and I raced local TTs and road races, others work was too busy and I did not race at all, but every single year I logged at least 400hrs on the bike.

In 2002, work slacked off and I really buckled down to training again. Logged close to 700hrs that year (~21,500km) and raced local TT's and tri relays to good effect. That fall my reg. t/p did two long distance triathlon's and did quite well. I felt like I was in my best shape ever (age 39).

I'd been following the old Wattage list for some time then and figured that given the long winters here a CT would be a great benefit. Got a decent deal on one and in Nov. 2002 did a series of benchmark tests which established what I termed my 'baseline' Power-Duration curve. At that time, I had no idea whether I could progress 5W from that level, 10W from that level or even hold that level given what I'd read about the effects on aging.

On the attached graph the Nov.2002 levels are shown in light blue on the lower portion of the graph. Indoor 30MP ~ outdoor FTP for me so at that time FTP was around 325W.

The dark blue and yellow lines above represent current AP and NP power-duration bests (set about three weeks ago) and the Reds are simply stretch targets that I may never, ever reach .. but I said the same thing 5-6 years ago!

By following the guidelines of a certain well-known ex. Phys. known to post here , and being willing and foolish enough to experiment and push myself over the edge from time to time, and by reading and learning what I could, I ended up gaining ~100W across the board over that time.

On an FTP basis, around 420W vs. 325W (+30%) starting off from what i believe most would call a "well-trained" state.

Yeah, yeah I know that's not 40% over six months on PC's but it is what it is.

Would I give up training with power? No way ... Would a mariner give up GPS and go back to the sextant? Same concept really. A superior tool is a superior tool. If you can't figure out how to make good use of it, find someone who can and hire them (or buy a training program ).

This all being said, I fully realize this is not scientific evidence. But how to obtain that?

Who would be stupid enough to go back to the sextant now? Or sandglass? Or sundial? Or HRM? But they all sort of worked, didn't they?

Better is better.

Congratulations.

I guess I don't equate hard numbers with hard data that go to the question I originally asked. Yours represents an anecdotal report but unless one has data from "matched" controls one doesn't know what to make of it as to whether it is a better way of training.

Your hard numbers demonstrate that this method to be an effective training method. What it doesn't demonstrate is that it is better than other training methods. But, that was the question I originally asked. Is there data to support the contention of some that this method of training is superior to others?

Congratulations on your improvement. That represents a lot of hard work.

 

[rmur17]

Congratulations.

I guess I don't equate hard numbers with hard data that go to the question I originally asked. Yours represents an anecdotal report but unless one has data from "matched" controls one doesn't know what to make of it as to whether it is a better way of training.

Your hard numbers demonstrate that this method to be an effective training method. What it doesn't demonstrate is that it is better than other training methods. But, that was the question I originally asked. Is there data to support the contention of some that this method of training is superior to others?

Congratulations on your improvement. That represents a lot of hard work.

for my own case, from around '94 onwards my only data, admittedly rough, were from local TT's on my road bike with clip-ons, semi-aero wheels etc. We ran about 10 events per yr on the same course -- enough to get a couple of good light wind days in there.

In '96 I set a PB of 30:22 ... only incrementally better than the previous yrs --- typically around the 30:30-30:40 mark would be my best for the year. In 2002 in August and coming back to racing form, with the same gear, I did 30:50. 2-3 months later I figure I could have done a bit better so let's say 30:30 was my baseline over those seven years.

The main point is that I personally, and parenthetically those around here, didn't measurably improve over that period of time. I don't know what FTP I was at over those years but (roughly!) judging from best TT performances and with close to constant equipment, I have to say somewhere around the 315-330W mark.

I haven't been able to run a solid TT on that course since 2006 but I know in good conditions and with decent aero gear that I can target 26 flat or high 25's right now. that's a simple projection of current power vs. ~350W in 2006.

That's roughly 20% faster since my pre-PM days and, as we all know, on a typical TT course that takes a much better than 20% increase in power-to-drag ratio (W/CdA) to achieve.

Anyhow, the PM is just a good modern tool. it's up to the user or coach to make the best of it.

 

[bbrauer]

Do you consider the Luttrell, Potteiger "ommission" an egregious case? Have you taken the time to report them to whatever society they might belong to for this egregious ommission or do you just continue to denigrate their character publicly without their being able to rebut. They did state that the results were not to be constituted as an endorsement of the product. Anyhow, what is the typical penalty for less egregious cases? I suspect people remind them about it and then move on. You seem unable to do that.

You know, this kind of reminds me a little of the Ric Stern/Timan dust up. How 'bout we get you two a ruler and resolve this once and for all?

 

[Fday]

for my own case, from around '94 onwards my only data, admittedly rough, were from local TT's on my road bike with clip-ons, semi-aero wheels etc. We ran about 10 events per yr on the same course -- enough to get a couple of good light wind days in there.

In '96 I set a PB of 30:22 ... only incrementally better than the previous yrs --- typically around the 30:30-30:40 mark would be my best for the year. In 2002 in August and coming back to racing form, with the same gear, I did 30:50. 2-3 months later I figure I could have done a bit better so let's say 30:30 was my baseline over those seven years.

The main point is that I personally, and parenthetically those around here, didn't measurably improve over that period of time. I don't know what FTP I was at over those years but (roughly!) judging from best TT performances and with close to constant equipment, I have to say somewhere around the 315-330W mark.

I haven't been able to run a solid TT on that course since 2006 but I know in good conditions and with decent aero gear that I can target 26 flat or high 25's right now. that's a simple projection of current power vs. ~350W in 2006.

That's roughly 20% faster since my pre-PM days and, as we all know, on a typical TT course that takes a much better than 20% increase in power-to-drag ratio (W/CdA) to achieve.

Anyhow, the PM is just a good modern tool. it's up to the user or coach to make the best of it.

You do understand don't you that the same people who are using data just like yours to tout how wonderful the PM is as a training tool completely discount similar reports from people who have trained on PC's as "it probably would have happened anyhow, where is the proof it was due to the PC's?" That is the problem with anecdotal evidence. It is suggestive of certain outcomes but hardly compelling to anyone who knows anything about scientific proof.

I don't doubt it is an effective tool, especially in the right hands. Just wondering if the "how effective" question can be answered, especially as regards in comparison to other methods to achieve the same end. Could you have achieved similar (or, possibly, even better) results using a HR monitor and portable lactate analyzer? Who knows?

 

[rmur17]

You do understand don't you that the same people who are using data just like yours to tout how wonderful the PM is as a training tool completely discount similar reports from people who have trained on PC's as "it probably would have happened anyhow, where is the proof it was due to the PC's?" That is the problem with anecdotal evidence. It is suggestive of certain outcomes but hardly compelling to anyone who knows anything about scientific proof.

I don't doubt it is an effective tool, especially in the right hands. Just wondering if the "how effective" question can be answered, especially as regards in comparison to other methods to achieve the same end. Could you have achieved similar (or, possibly, even better) results using a HR monitor and portable lactate analyzer? Who knows?

Well I never have posted any of that blurb before -especially the bits before 2002 as I have no reason to tout anything! you asked: I answered. For me, the addition of a much better measuring tool to my toolbox produced a marked change in performance over the last half of an ~15-yr period.

Clearly it wasn't the tool per se, it was what I did with it. I'm sure others have covered it as well but I found that simply having a good measurement available all year round made training that much more focused and motivating. I train indoors for ~six month of the year. Having power targets to chase and motivate me is a big, big, big part of my progress.

How in the world would I do that using an HRM or lactate analyzer? Before you say compare HR and/or lactate response using a fixed trainer, wheel pressure, coast-down and speed etc --- those only a poor estimate of ... power delivered to the rear wheel.

So I definitely now train significantly harder, for less hours per week and with better results. And I'm still motivated to eek out another few W even at my age! Hard to argue against that.

 

[acoggan]

That is the problem with anecdotal evidence. It is suggestive of certain outcomes but hardly compelling to anyone who knows anything about scientific proof.

Yet your website is chock full of similar (well, actually not-all-that-similar, in that they practically always lack objective data) testimonials, all intended to convince people to buy your cranks - go figure!

 

[fergie]

Great work Frank, now we have stumped up with more than enough facts the problem has changed to "too much data".

 

[Steve_B]

Great work Frank, now we have stumped up with more than enough facts the problem has changed to "too much data".

No surprise there.

 

[Fday]

Yet your website is chock full of similar (well, actually not-all-that-similar, in that they practically always lack objective data) testimonials, all intended to convince people to buy your cranks - go figure!

Testimonial and anecdotal evidence is not worthless, as it can lead people into thinking along new lines. Sometimes it is all one has. However, it is pretty much worthless for "proving" points which is why we are supportive of anyone who wants to do a scientific study regarding our product.

If you think PM "testimonial evidence" is "better" because they all have "objective" power data, all I can say is LOL.

 

[Steve_B]

If you think PM "testimonial evidence" is "better" because they all have "objective" power data, all I can say is LOL.

Better than what alternative? The power meter doesn't lie.

 

[Fday]

The power meter doesn't lie.

Unless, of course, it hasn't been calibrated, zeroed, has a bad straing gauge, the file has been manipulated, it is too hot, it is too cold, and on and on.

 

[fergie]

People manipulate files. Who would sink that low?

 

[Steve_B]

People manipulate files. Who would sink that low?

Ahh, but Frank says it was only "a practical joke", so that makes it better...

 

[Steve_B]

Unless, of course, it hasn't been calibrated, zeroed, has a bad straing gauge, the file has been manipulated, it is too hot, it is too cold, and on and on.

Which can and does happen with research studies too. I've seen it (poor calibration) in research stuff in my own professional field. So being a reviewed study does not make it immune from scrutiny. It's not like peer reviewers went and checked the SRM calibration for the researchers.

Yup, Frank will cast doubt on that but if the study is about PC's...WELL THEN...it must be totally on the up and up, right? No chance the cal was off on the studies Robert mentioned, huh? (I guess it doesn't matter since they didn't show an increase in power output with PCs anyway.)

 

[Fday]

Which can and does happen with research studies too. I've seen it (poor calibration) in research stuff in my own professional field. So being a reviewed study does not make it immune from scrutiny. It's not like peer reviewers went and checked the SRM calibration for the researchers.

Yup, Frank will cast doubt on that but if the study is about PC's...WELL THEN...it must be totally on the up and up, right? No chance the cal was off on the studies Robert mentioned, huh? (I guess it doesn't matter since they didn't show an increase in power output with PCs anyway.)

No, all that stuff applies to PC studies also. That is why a study should be repeated by separate groups to confirm the findings. No need to repeat that negative study because even I would have predicted that outcome as a probablity.

The study in question, the only PC study with a "negative" (no benefit) outcome, most likely did not show an increase because there wasn't enough stimulus. 10 short training sessions in 5 weeks is ludicrous. This problem would be obvious to anyone who has ever trained on the cranks, not so obvious to everyone else who all wonder that the big deal is. LOL

 

[swampy1970]

How in the world would I do that using an HRM or lactate analyzer? Before you say compare HR and/or lactate response using a fixed trainer, wheel pressure, coast-down and speed etc --- those only a poor estimate of ... power delivered to the rear wheel.

Interesting read and an impressive improvement.

Just wondering though... if you're training six months of the year indoors, you'd be able to track improvements through increases in speed which is in direct corrolation to the speed of the rear wheel.

 

[Fday]

How in the world would I do that using an HRM or lactate analyzer? Before you say compare HR and/or lactate response using a fixed trainer, wheel pressure, coast-down and speed etc --- those only a poor estimate of ... power delivered to the rear wheel.

HR and lactic acid are both methods of measuring training effort, both quantifiable. So you measure your training effort using those tools and measure the benefit on the race course or through testing or some other measure. It is not possible to measure improvement using HR and lactic acid alone.

Using a power meter is not the only way of quantifying training effort. The question I asked was whether other methods of assessing training effort might be just as good (maybe not as good for you as you may need those numbers staring you in the face for motivation but others may respond better to other types of feedback) when all users are taken into account and results averaged.

 

[doctorSpoc]

Interesting read and an impressive improvement.

Just wondering though... if you're training six months of the year indoors, you'd be able to track improvements through increases in speed which is in direct corrolation to the speed of the rear wheel.

but how do you correlate your indoor numbers with the outdoor power numbers or outdoors in a headwind and a tailwind uphill downhill and the one inside when the tire pressure was slightly different than another day and the one where the pressure of the tire against the roller was slightly different than another day... that's the beauty of the power meter.. whatever, where ever it will tell you your power... no fuss, no muss, no approximation, no calculation, no guessing.. it just tells you your power.