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

Discussion in 'Power Training' started by Fday, Apr 25, 2008.

  1. Felt_Rider

    Felt_Rider Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2004
    Messages:
    3,257
    Likes Received:
    27
    Maybe you have a doppleganger that is posting these or you're getting "old timers disease" like me. :D
     


  2. daveryanwyoming

    daveryanwyoming Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2006
    Messages:
    3,857
    Likes Received:
    97
    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.....
     
  3. Steve_B

    Steve_B New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2006
    Messages:
    750
    Likes Received:
    0
    OK, maybe I'm the one with the bad memory. :eek: I found one but apparently there isn't another here or on Wattage (which is all I've been paying attention to lately). Sorry! :)
     
  4. daveryanwyoming

    daveryanwyoming Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2006
    Messages:
    3,857
    Likes Received:
    97
    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
     
  5. Fday

    Fday New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2005
    Messages:
    1,341
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  6. Fday

    Fday New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2005
    Messages:
    1,341
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  7. frenchyge

    frenchyge New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2005
    Messages:
    4,687
    Likes Received:
    4
    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.
     
  8. RChung

    RChung New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2006
    Messages:
    306
    Likes Received:
    1
    You're making the non-random error of thinking that random errors have zero mean.
     
  9. Fday

    Fday New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2005
    Messages:
    1,341
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  10. Squint

    Squint New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2003
    Messages:
    351
    Likes Received:
    0
    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
     
  11. Felt_Rider

    Felt_Rider Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2004
    Messages:
    3,257
    Likes Received:
    27
    Since the start of this thread I bought a power meter even if there is a "lack of evidence" as some would ponder. :D
     
  12. Steve_B

    Steve_B New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2006
    Messages:
    750
    Likes Received:
    0
    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?
     
  13. robuk

    robuk New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Messages:
    20
    Likes Received:
    0
    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 ".
     
  14. frenchyge

    frenchyge New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2005
    Messages:
    4,687
    Likes Received:
    4
    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


    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).
     
  15. baker3

    baker3 New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    339
    Likes Received:
    1
    After reading every page, i'm confused - which one is better? the evidence doesn't appear to exist.
     
  16. fergie

    fergie Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2004
    Messages:
    1,924
    Likes Received:
    12
    Its a red herring. There is no "Power Meter" method of training. Just Frank seeking to confuse and confound. Training methods have not changed because of the introduction of power meters. It's simply the measurement of training that has improved as power is a direct measure of physical performance.
     
  17. doctorSpoc

    doctorSpoc New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2005
    Messages:
    1,488
    Likes Received:
    4
    power meters are measuring device for training intensity and not a training methodology...

    The real question is, are power meters better at measuring training intensity? Absolutely because they measure it directly and accurately and measure changes in it instantaneously... they don't dictate your training though... so the argument as stated by Frank doesn't make a lot of sense.

    It's like asking if using a bathroom scale will make you lose weight faster? No, the diet you are on will (just like the training regime is what makes you a better cyclist), but it WILL let you know if what you are doing is working because it measures the thing you want to know directly and accurately (just like a power meter does). You could use a mirror, but it would be less accurate and more subjective.. you could also see if your pants are more loose, or measure your waist etc.. but again you are measuring indirect measures of the attribute you really want to know. If you have a scale there is no reason to bother with anything else because you know exactly what you want to know and there is no subjectivity or guess work or potential for gross errors.

    again, the argument as framed by Frank doesn't make sense.. it a false argument.. straw man.. red herring.. whatever you want to call it..

    in a nutshell.. power simple let you what the hell you are doing and there are software tool that can be used in conjunction with them that let you track progress or lack there of and make your life easier. Frank is right that there are a lot of people that get caught up too much in the numbers and seem to miss the significants or lack there of, of this number or that number but all-in-all... imho... power meters make your life easier and save me a tonne of time in tracking progress and in making the precious time i have for training more productive.
     
  18. grahamspringett

    grahamspringett New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2004
    Messages:
    263
    Likes Received:
    0
    Is this thread ever going to end?

    If Frank wants proof it is better, I suggest he buys a power meter and uses it, and compares his way of training and his results to a period when he didn't use one.

    The original question can never be answered because he clearly doesn't want to be persuaded. He is teasing everybody and everybody is biting.

    You may as well ask somebody to prove carbon is better than titanium for a frame, or whether 32 spokes is better than 28, or if kmh is better than mph for measuring speed. There can be no proof, just as there's no proof Power Cranks are better than standard ones.

    I know a guy who uses a PM and has used Power Cranks. He's a strong rider. So is he a strong rider because of the power meter or the cranks? Can it be proven which is responsible?

    Or is it that he's strong cos he trains lots and with efficiency?
     
  19. fergie

    fergie Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2004
    Messages:
    1,924
    Likes Received:
    12
    I market a product called air. I have a long list of Professional cyclists who use air in training and racing. My question is there any studies showing that a method of measuring air consumption is better than just breathing air itself? I have also heard that Lance Armstrong breathes air so I know I am on to a winner. In internal testing and from customer feedback I can see that the average customer improves their breathing air ability by 40%. I will post the data from internal testing in 2000 at some point. Also heard that the BCF breath air although I have forgotten who I was talking to there. I have just been involved in a study that showed that breathing air lead to a 10% gain in efficiently breathing air although I forgot to disclose that I supplied the air and we had issues with the control group who refused to not breath air. On presentation of these findings at ACSM we did get laughed off stage as we could not provide information on calibration of equipment used to breath air but personally I think all 356 of those scientists are biased. Although no physiology or medical journals would publish the experiment (that bias again) we found a journal from the National Society of Air Breathers to publish it for us. But science is clearly biased against our product and I prefer to recall the 9 year old girl who can run faster than when she was 8 because she breathed air and the guy who rides up Spanish Hills faster than he did at age 20 after breathing air although there is a conspiracy that he faked this result and possibly breathed less air than the data indicates.

    Informercial coming soon!!!

    Watch this space!
     
  20. acoggan

    acoggan Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Messages:
    3,047
    Likes Received:
    9
    There you go irresponsibly promoting that darn air stuff again! Don't you know that it contains one of the most dangerous gases known to mankind? Yes, folks, it's true: air (even on the top of Mt. Everest) is 20.9% O2!! After considering the following facts I'm sure that you will join with me in my international campaign to have that nasty O2-containing air at least regulated, if not banned outright:

    1) Without O2 there would be no rust, such that our classic Reynolds 531 bike frames would last forever.

    2) O2 is the true cause of all fires (since all fires occur in the presence of O2).

    3) O2 is extremely toxic: even concentrations as low as 0.001 ppm will kill you in a very short period of time.

    4) At higher concentrations death does not occur as quickly, but even at atmospheric levels death eventually ensues.

    5) O2 is highly addictive: just one breath the instant you leave the womb and you are hooked for life.
     
Loading...
Loading...