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

[Fday]

But if the PC studies have enough ambiguity with them (as they apparently do), why is this more believable?

Actually, the PC studies have little ambiguity in them, if you read them carefully. But, that is subject to interpretation i guess. Either way, I don't think anecdotal evidence in the form of testimonials is "more believable" if oe is trying to prove the benefit. But, it is frequently "more believeable" to the average person, who may not be skilled at interpreting studies and when studies may not be adequate or exist, to answer the question, "So what does all this mean to me? What might I see?" And, when combined with a 90 day money-back guarantee we think it is enough to convince many to give them a try to see what happens to them. How many power meter manufacturers offer a 90 day money-back guarantee? Obviously, it is not enough to convince you and many others here. So be it.

 

[swampy1970]

speed is a reasonable measure against a fixed trainer load as long as you try to control the variables I mentioned + whatever I forgot. slightly ot but this year I've had to extend the length of my standard workout/test CT courses for ~20min, and ~30min as the old ones had simply gotten too short somehow .

The CT is a great tool - I have to say the main reason I bought it was for power feedback though having experienced ergo mode I'd say that's something else I'd much rather not do without.

That sounds like fun. I'm guessing by CT you mean CompuTrainer... what model do you have?

 

[rmur17]

That sounds like fun. I'm guessing by CT you mean CompuTrainer... what model do you have?

Aye Computrainer Pro 3D version 8001 (could be an 8002 as I don't recall exactly when they upgraded them). The load generator is good for 1500W max which, as I cannot sprint, is more than enough for me.

Excellent tool

 

[Steve_B]

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.

But if the PC published studies have enough ambiguity with them (as they apparently do), why is this more believable?

edit: You've cast doubt on (essentially) everyone's anecdotal evidence with power meters. All that says, when you get down to it, is that nothing is believable and we should all find out for ourselves. So why bother doing a study on PMs anyway? You're just going to doubt the findings anyway.

 

[Fday]

Which are all instruments. So what you are asking for is a study comparing measurement instrumentation.

Well, in a way, yes. Wouldn't it be nice to actually have a study comparing different training methods and different training feedback tools so you could have an understanding of the relative merits of each technique/tool before you invested a lot of time or money in it? It probably isn't going to happen though. It would be extremely difficult, if not, impossible to do. We are trying with PC's but it isn't going to happen, I am sure, with these other devices/techniques.

 

[Fday]

I'm not a scientist but a control group is ... well ... a control group isn't it? how can the experimental and control groups be one and the same?

is the full text of that report available anywhere BTW? How certain are you that they followed what was described in their proposal?

No, a control group is not a control group. How would it be possible to "study" global warming if one required a control group to reach a conclusion? Maybe that is the Bush administrations problem with the data? There are lots of ways to design studies and analyze data to reach statiscially significant results. Traditional control groups, as you are thinking, are not always necessary. Analysis may be "easier" and results more apparent to the lay person if one has one, but they are not always necessary.

 

[Fday]

But if the PC published studies have enough ambiguity with them (as they apparently do), why is this more believable?

edit: You've cast doubt on (essentially) everyone's anecdotal evidence with power meters. All that says, when you get down to it, is that nothing is believable and we should all find out for ourselves. So why bother doing a study on PMs anyway? You're just going to doubt the findings anyway.

Well, one should cast doubt on anecdotal evidence as proof of the truth of something. Now, it is not so awful for you as an individual to make a decision if it is all that there is, which is the case here in trying to determine training techniques, (or buying cars, or TV's or almost anything else) but by no means should a bunch of anecdotal evidence be used to prove something to be true, even though some will try. That requires a well designed study or two. Then, few will doubt the findings (including me) if the results are strong enough.

 

[fergie]

There would be no advantage to using a piece of equipment that makes you do something other than what you "intend" to do in a race. The reason that people get power cranks is they believe that there is a more efficient way of pedaling and PC's can help them achieve that. So, people get PC's because they intend to pedal "better" when racing.

Only if you intend to race with powercranks and in all the studies becoming more efficient with them doesn't actually make you more powerful than using normal cranks.

If you "intend" to pedal as you are now then don't get PC's because they will change you. However, if you believe there might be some room for improvement and you would like a little help, then you should consider PC's.

No because we have shown they don't make you pedal faster and at best will train you to be good at something you don't need.

But then you have Swampy claiming that they will make us faster. But can not provide anything more than anecdote about any improvements.

I am having a similar discussion with a friend about a supplement that I am finding very effective. Maybe it was the supplement, maybe it was the intervals I was doing, maybe it was my lucky red socks. But at least there was an improvement in my specific event. Something yet you haven't proven with PCs.

 

[Fday]

Only if you intend to race with powercranks and in all the studies becoming more efficient with them doesn't actually make you more powerful than using normal cranks.

Huh? As far as I know all the studies, including Luttrell and Dixon tested the athletes on normal cranks. If one has changed the way one actually pedals, it doesn't matter what cranks are on the bike. It only matters if one is trying to change how one pedals.

No because we have shown they don't make you pedal faster and at best will train you to be good at something you don't need.

You have "shown" that PowerCranks "don't make you pedal faster and at best will train you to be good at something you don't need"? Could you direct me to the study where you "showed" this?

But then you have Swampy claiming that they will make us faster. But can not provide anything more than anecdote about any improvements.

But, you can't provide anything more than anecdote about getting faster either. How about the Phil Holman anecdote, since you are a pursuiter. Many years ago Phil was more negative about the cranks than you are. Complete waste of time blah blah blah. I challenged him to use them as I direct and for him to keep a log and report regularly to the group (the old RBR, RST). I required him to use them exclusively in training although he could ride his track bike with regular cranks on the track when training there. 7 months later he had added 3 mph to his top speed, 2 mph to his pursuit speed and he won a bronze medal at worlds. Needless to say he said "they worked for me"in his last report. I know, it was all placebo.

I am having a similar discussion with a friend about a supplement that I am finding very effective. Maybe it was the supplement, maybe it was the intervals I was doing, maybe it was my lucky red socks. But at least there was an improvement in my specific event. Something yet you haven't proven with PCs.

I don't pretend to state that I know what the product will do for you in your event. I am quite sure, if you use it right, there is a 99% chance you will be happy with the results. However, I am 100% certain if you are unwilling to even give them a try there is no chance you can benefit from them. But proof, no I don't have proof. And, neither does anyone else in this area.

 

[Steve_B]

Wouldn't it be nice to actually have a study comparing different training methods and different training feedback tools so you could have an understanding of the relative merits of each technique/tool before you invested a lot of time or money in it? It probably isn't going to happen though. It would be extremely difficult, if not, impossible to do..

But when you get down to it, you are talking about comparing measurement instruments, not methods of training.

How would you remove bias due to the particular training structure chosen?

If you tried to remove the bias of HRM variabilty (pulse variability due to things like caffeine intake, temperature, hydration, stress, etc.) you'd end up working in a very sterile, non-realistic environment. People drink coffee, ride at different ambient air temperatures and have fights with their spouses in real life so a lab study that controls for stuff like that is useless to me.

A lactate meter? I'm not going to go around pricking my finger all the time. Forget it.

That's why I have a power meter. It tells me when I'm good and it tells me when I suck and there's no guessing because I didn't get enough sleep last night.

You're barking up the wrong tree, Frank.

 

[swampy1970]

Only if you intend to race with powercranks and in all the studies becoming more efficient with them doesn't actually make you more powerful than using normal cranks.


No because we have shown they don't make you pedal faster and at best will train you to be good at something you don't need.

But then you have Swampy claiming that they will make us faster. But can not provide anything more than anecdote about any improvements.

I am having a similar discussion with a friend about a supplement that I am finding very effective. Maybe it was the supplement, maybe it was the intervals I was doing, maybe it was my lucky red socks. But at least there was an improvement in my specific event. Something yet you haven't proven with PCs.

No... you have me telling you that they helped me get faster. What you do with a piece of equipment and how steadfastly you stick to using it is upto you and you may not get the same results. However, from other PowerCrank users that I have been in contact with I'd say there'd be a reasonable chance that you may see improvement beyond that you were seeing already.

If you want actual lab data or downloads from a PowerTap or similar device, then feel free to pay for the above - otherwise you'll just have to deal with my own test data.

What's the mystery 'supplement' - You eatin' the same cheeseburgers that Jan (Ulrich) used too over the winter months?

 

[Alex Simmons]

it's absolutely glorious morning here in Sydney.

Just thought I'd say that

 

[RChung]

Actually, the Dixon group did have a control group, just not a typical one. [snip]

Yikes. Two words: Gastric. Freezing.

 

[swampy1970]

it's absolutely glorious morning here in Sydney.

Just thought I'd say that

It's mighty fine and dandy here. 80F and a light breeze. Just want to sit outside and relax.... Got another 19 minutes before I drop the top on the car and go home!

So what's this gastic freezing m'larky? And what does frozen **** have to do with anything? Is it what happens when you ignore the heart rate and press on regardless staring at the power meter thinking that 390watts is just fine.... minutes later the EMT's show up in the ambulance and see that you hit the floor with a final HR of 237bpm... then they stick you in the morgue.

 

[swampy1970]

So how 'bout those Rotor cranks....

 

[RChung]

So how 'bout those Rotor cranks....

Well, here's a study with a counter-balanced cross-over control design.

 

[RChung]

So what's this gastic freezing m'larky? And what does frozen **** have to do with anything?

Did you try googling it up?

 

[Fday]

Well, here's a study with a counter-balanced cross-over control design.

Isn't the theory behind the Rotor system to maximize the "pushing" muscle contribution and "minimize" those pesky dead spots? Either, it would seem, the product doesn't do those things, or "just pushing harder" isn't quite what a lot of people make it out to be.

 

[swampy1970]

Did you try googling it up?

Given that I had more pressing matters... no. I will though.

 

[RChung]

Isn't the theory behind the Rotor system to maximize the "pushing" muscle contribution and "minimize" those pesky dead spots? Either, it would seem, the product doesn't do those things, or "just pushing harder" isn't quite what a lot of people make it out to be.

First, I think a more accurate description of the theory was about duty cycle, not dead spots. Second, it's pretty interesting what a well-designed study can show.