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



Fday

New Member
Dec 6, 2005
1,341
0
0
rmur17 said:
ah you're assuming his efficiency has much (if anything) to do with his pedalling style vs. say ... his % of Type I fibers ...
I would say you are the one making the assumption, regarding the basis of his efficiency.
 

Steve_B

New Member
Dec 31, 2006
750
0
0
Fday said:
Well, the first two cannot measure improvement so the only choice is C [PM] from those you listed.
If you admit this then why are we even having this thread? How can expect to get better results training with an inferior instrument?
 

Fday

New Member
Dec 6, 2005
1,341
0
0
Bruce Diesel said:
Okay, then let me rephrase.

When assessing the improvement that power-cranks have made to an athletes performance, which measuring tool would yeild the best results?
The best improvent measure I can think of regarding an athletes performance is the actual performance itself.

Measuring power would be an easy way to track progress but I am not sure it is better than any other method. That was the reason for the original question here. Is there any evidence, beyond anecdotal, that power is a better metric to follow than other metrics?
 

Fday

New Member
Dec 6, 2005
1,341
0
0
Steve_B said:
If you admit this then why are we even having this thread? How can expect to get better results training with an inferior instrument?
Because the ones you listed are not the only metrics that can be used to track progress. Many others exist.
 

Felt_Rider

Active Member
Oct 24, 2004
3,257
27
48
dog%20chasing%20tail.jpg
 

RChung

New Member
Sep 12, 2006
306
1
0
swampy1970 said:
Efficiency is not [particularly] important... Hmmmm. Whatever you say....
Excellent. I was hoping you'd eventually see the light.
 

Steve_B

New Member
Dec 31, 2006
750
0
0
Fday said:
Because the ones you listed are not the only metrics that can be used to track progress. Many others exist.
But you just wrote a little while ago that only a PM can show improvement. Why would you use a metric that doesn't work to track your progress?
 

Bruce Diesel

New Member
Dec 7, 2004
188
0
0
Fday said:
The best improvent measure I can think of regarding an athletes performance is the actual performance itself.

Measuring power would be an easy way to track progress but I am not sure it is better than any other method. That was the reason for the original question here. Is there any evidence, beyond anecdotal, that power is a better metric to follow than other metrics?
We all agree that power is directly related to the speed at which a bicycle is propelled.

Well, at the end of the day, all the other metrics are measuring power indirectly e.g. measuring speed up a climb, or time taken on a pre-defined course, lower HR at the same intensity (which would be defined in power terms anyway), etc. So, there is nothing anecdotal about the fact that measuring the performance metric directly is both better and easier than measuring other variables and deducing improvements in the metric that counts. Indirect measurement introduces error because the variables that influence the results are difficult to measure accurately if at all.

This is a fact, I cannot see how the term anecdotal is even applicable here.

An example:

After an athlete has trained in a certain way (be it with power cranks, wattage specific intervals, whatever). And tests his performance in two ways:

1. Time to complete a climb has improved by x%.
2. Power output over a certain duration has improved by y%.

Now, do you seriously question which of these to metrics is a better measurement? If you do, then with all due respect I have to have serious doubts about any statements you make regarding any aspect of cycling performance.
 

acoggan

Member
Jul 4, 2003
3,047
9
0
Fday said:
The best improvent measure I can think of regarding an athletes performance is the actual performance itself.

Gee, where have I heard that before? ;)
 

Fday

New Member
Dec 6, 2005
1,341
0
0
Bruce Diesel said:
We all agree that power is directly related to the speed at which a bicycle is propelled.

Well, at the end of the day, all the other metrics are measuring power indirectly e.g. measuring speed up a climb, or time taken on a pre-defined course, lower HR at the same intensity (which would be defined in power terms anyway), etc. So, there is nothing anecdotal about the fact that measuring the performance metric directly is both better and easier than measuring other variables and deducing improvements in the metric that counts. Indirect measurement introduces error because the variables that influence the results are difficult to measure accurately if at all.

This is a fact, I cannot see how the term anecdotal is even applicable here.

An example:

After an athlete has trained in a certain way (be it with power cranks, wattage specific intervals, whatever). And tests his performance in two ways:

1. Time to complete a climb has improved by x%.
2. Power output over a certain duration has improved by y%.

Now, do you seriously question which of these to metrics is a better measurement? If you do, then with all due respect I have to have serious doubts about any statements you make regarding any aspect of cycling performance.
There is only one problem with measuring power alone as your performance metric. Power is not the only important variable in deterining how fast one goes on a bicycle. It is easy to gain more power if one sits up on the bike (like when climbing) but this could slow you down because of the aerodyamics. And, by the same token a rider can become faster by improving aerodynamics without increasing power at all (or, even, at a lower power).

So, power is not necessarily perfect in predicting performance. It is important, but not the only thing the serious racer needs to work on.

The original question was not whether or not power was a good tool. The question was whether there was any evidence, other than anecdotal, that it was a better tool than others that existed before it in helping athletes to perform better.
 

Felt_Rider

Active Member
Oct 24, 2004
3,257
27
48
TheDarkLord said:
:D I think it will be interesting to see how many times Frank has contradicted himself in the thread.
Steve_B said:
But you just wrote a little while ago that only a PM can show improvement. Why would you use a metric that doesn't work to track your progress?
Steve noticed as well :D

How many contradicting times?
It may go up as quickly as my post count.
 

acoggan

Member
Jul 4, 2003
3,047
9
0
swampy1970 said:
So how does the explain how someone like Olano, who reportedly has a very low VO2max in comparison with his peers but apparently has a very efficient pedaling style, could time trial better than pretty much better than anyone.

Lucia, A., J. Hoyos, M. Perez, A. Santalla, and J.L. Chicharro. Inverse relationship between VO2max and economy/efficiency in world-class cyclists. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 34: 2079-2084, 2002.

1. I was speaking of small, intraindividual differences in efficiency due to differences in how you choose (or are forced) to pedal, vs. interindividual differences in efficiency which don't correlate with how you pedal.

2. The study you cite provides no evidence that Olano pedaled any differently than other subjects who were much less efficient.
 

Steve_B

New Member
Dec 31, 2006
750
0
0
Fday said:
There is only one problem with measuring power alone as your performance metric. Power is not the only important variable in deterining how fast one goes on a bicycle. It is easy to gain more power if one sits up on the bike (like when climbing) but this could slow you down because of the aerodyamics. And, by the same token a rider can become faster by improving aerodynamics without increasing power at all (or, even, at a lower power).
AHHHHH! :mad: Frank, you started this thread about power, not speed. We all know that speed is dependant upon many things, not just power. Stop moving the goalposts, like seem to want to do.

Fday said:
The original question was not whether or not power was a good tool. The question was whether there was any evidence, other than anecdotal, that it was a better tool than others that existed before it in helping athletes to perform better.
So I repeat my question of just a little while ago. You said that only a power meter can show a rider's improvement. So why would you train and measure your improvement with an instrument or method that does not work?
 

Bruce Diesel

New Member
Dec 7, 2004
188
0
0
Fday said:
The original question was not whether or not power was a good tool. The question was whether there was any evidence, other than anecdotal, that it was a better tool than others that existed before it in helping athletes to perform better.
To which tools are you referring?
 

Alex Simmons

Member
Mar 12, 2006
2,471
20
38
it's another glorious morning here in Sydney. track conditions are clear and fast for some fabulously frenetic finger action at the keyboards around the world. Once again the protagonists have been released from the gates and they're charging....:D
 

Steve_B

New Member
Dec 31, 2006
750
0
0
Felt_Rider said:
Steve noticed as well :D

How many contradicting times?
It may go up as quickly as my post count.
This is how he wiggles out of it: He'll wait until someone else posts something to which he can reply to and either change the subject or blow it off completely. Except I'm not letting this go....;)
 

Fday

New Member
Dec 6, 2005
1,341
0
0
Steve_B said:
AHHHHH! :mad: Frank, you started this thread about power, not speed. We all know that speed is dependant upon many things, not just power. Stop moving the goalposts, like seem to want to do.

So I repeat my question of just a little while ago. You said that only a power meter can show a rider's improvement. So why would you train and measure your improvement with an instrument or method that does not work?
Ugh, I son't know of a sinngle cyling race that gives the trophy to the rider who can generate the most power. Usually it goes to the fastest. Going fast involves a lot of skills. Power is just one metric one can work on to achieve that fastest goal.

Why would you presume that looking at that single metric would be the best measure of how one will perform overall? Obviously, you believe so, which gets me back to the original question. Is there any evidence to support your proposition that measuring this one metric is superior to other methods of measuring achievement when preparing for a bike race?