What is the evidence that training with power is superior to . . .
- Thread starter Fday
- Start date
Are you getting upset because people are picking on your buddy?swampy1970 said:
Personally I could care less if you are a PC user, but when someone comes on this site calls PM users hypocrites like he did several posts back, tries to pick apart a valid training tool used by a number of folks here in order to deceitfully market his own items I am going to make comments. I am quite alright if you want to make comments about me. Feel free to make some more if you desire.
LOL. Fewer people will see these threads than see them on ST. However, where better to ask a question as to what data supports something than amongst a group of its advocates. The fact that little or no data (other than anecdotal data) exists is not evidence that something is useless. It only says the usefulness has yet to be "proven".daveryanwyoming said:
When people don't have the answers they would like to have it seems they react with name calling. So be it.
swampy1970 said:
yes, you do... because the PM actually measures the actual intensity... it measures power... ...what you are ACTUALLY doing ... there is no guess work.. no error (..well very little error).
e.g. in a group ride last year i was doing 19 km/hr into a strong headwind at about 300 Watts... in the other direction i was doing almost 60km/hr at 250Watts... what would speed, cadence, gear etc told me about that effort... nothing! what would HR tell me? unless i wrote a hundred qualifiers HR would be almost as useless as the other readings... e.g. if i take a few days off my HR is elevated relative to what it would normally be in relation to power output.. RPE is even better than HR... so i need to know what my training was like in the past few days, what time of day it is, how warm is it, did i just drink a red bull...? all of this complexity or i can just look down at my power meter and know exactly what i'm doing at any given instant in time... after using a power meter i would never use or recommend the use of a HR monitor ever again... of all the method HR is the worst... it's just all over the map... useless... and i think counter productive.
aside from the accuracy thing.. there is the ease of use thing... one of the great benefits of a power meter (probably the biggest for me) is that there is no guess work, no thinking.. the numbers are what they are... it makes things very easy. you want to do a workout, you just go out and do it. you have the structure and the intensity and you just do it. a coach wants to prescribe a workout.. he just prescribes the workout structure and intensity (in power) that's it.. don't have to think about wind or false flats, indoors or outdoors, uphill, downhill... or whatever... you just do your workout and you go home. you want to know if you are doing better... you just look down at the PM and or look at your file.. that's it.. no thinking, no guessing, no approximations... you just look at the numbers... this is one of the problems i have with some of the discussions on this forum... because PM make things really easy and many people want to go and make them unnecessarily complex.. don't get it?
ironically, if you want to know if your PC are improving your performance... just look down at you PM and you will know in an instant if that's the case... you don't even need to do special test... you can get data from your everyday workouts.
for me, the second most valuable thing is you know how much time you are wasting by not riding at the prescribed intensity... as a busy person a power meter lets you accomplish more in less time but cutting down on all the wasted miles
if you want to know what you are actually doing and if you are improving.. get a power meter... after you use one for a few months you'll realize that before you were flying blind... just guesstimating.
Frank, is it too simple to say
Power Meter = Training Aide
Power Cranks = Training Aide
Let the person choose as they desire and as they believe?
Perhaps one, both or none?
Power Meter = Training Aide
Power Cranks = Training Aide
Let the person choose as they desire and as they believe?
Perhaps one, both or none?
Huh? the only way to know how much power one is generating is to measure same. Power is an integral part of going fast.Steve_B said:
The question is not whether measuring power or periodic testing is a good thing but how does using a power meter to measure training intensity rank compared to other methods of measuring training intensity in helping to achieve power improvement gains?
When race officials stop using a clock and start measuing athletes power to determine who wins, then I can say with some certainty that training with a power meter will undoubtably be superior to other methods of training feedback and cyclists will stop wearing aero helmets.
Your points are all good. the same exact question can be asked of the HR monitor. How much performance gain could be attributed to it over using PE as the feedback mechanism. My own experience would say, not much. The main advantage of the HR monitor that I see is helping inexperienced new runners to pace themselves as they develop an aerobic base and learn what different efforts feel like. Once they have that they usually know their HR within a couple of beats without looking at their watch. I think if it were to be studied, I think the advantage would be small or non-existant.Tapeworm said:Are you out to specifically be obtuse? Or are you genuinely not clear on methods of training? Given your supposed background I thought this constitutes a deliberately provocative question.
Regardless...
The training systems and methods as far as I can tell have not altered any great deal with the more common usage of power meters, rather they allow a means to qualify and record data that previously was either unknown or guessed at, and consequently allow for a more definitive structure to be brought to training.
A similar question could have been asked with the arising use of HR monitors many years back as opposed to working on perceived rate of exertion. Is there any evidence that training with a timing device is superior to PRE?
Given the rather complex nature of human beings there could be no way of ever proving that one "system" is superior to any other. As one other person had already mentioned psychology plays such a huge part in performance that no study could "prove" the best training system. If they could have proved it, they would have by now.
Though one does have to wonder why all these professional teams are using PMs, no? Must be something worthwhile with all that data they are collecting. Bragging rights? Must be it, no other application could be made. "I know your guy won the race but check this wattage out!"
For me a power meter allows another set of data that can be analyzed and helps in many regards to make things simpler when it comes to training. For example time trialing. If on a 40k course I average X watts, then if I know that if I want to go faster I have definitive value that I need to increase. Speed, HR and PRE would not assist in being able to measure accurately the gains made from training (ok I'll spell it out, speed is affected by too many environmental aspects, HR is at its ceiling and lags after effort has increased/decreased and PRE is always the same - totally shagged).
Also, the PM has also allowed me to identify points on a specific TT course where and when I have taken my foot off the pedal (so to speak). This is not reflected in HR data.
No doubt there will be many a rebuttal. Argument for its own sake? Or is there a point to all this?
Don't see the PM being used the same way. From a coaching perspective I could see the PM files as an incentive to make sure the user does the workouts specified. "Cheating" or going lazy is going to be caught. But, if one doesn't have a coach, that advantage disappears.
How could something less precise be more effective?Fday said:
http://www.cyclingforums.com/showpost.php?p=3790148&postcount=110
That's not really evidence. That's a random occurence. Perhaps we can attribute your relative health this year to that butterfly in Brazil flapping its wings, causing ever-so-slight variations in atmospheric conditions that directed that flu virus in another direction just as you walked by and inhaled.asgelle said:
This thread has gone on too long as just a back and forth. The real motivation for the OP is the non-stop criticism, ridicule and dismissive attitude directed at Mr. Powercranks by the predominant "tribe" here, particularly for the alleged lack of peer reviewed evidence to support the efficacy of his cranks.
Although his argument is flawed, can you at least accept that if PCs are required to have extensive peer reviewed studies in order for Mr. Powercrank to not be insulted and bagged on constantly here, shouldn't power meters be held to the same standard.
I don't use PCs, so I don't really have a horse in the contest, but there is pleny of anecdotal evidence by many people for whom they seem to work, and on a basic intuitive level, they make some sense as a feedback tool, much as a power meter is a feedback tool. The cult-like intolerance for differing ideas in this place kind of bugs.
Well, as much as you have Tom Sawyer'ed me into cutting and pasting when you are perfectly capable of doing the same:Fday said:
From post #1
then you went on to say that anecdotal evidence was not sufficient (post 14). However, Sunday (post 119), it was:Fday said:
Which is a question that by it's very nature asks for anecdotal evidence.Fday said:
So you don't even know what you want Frank.
Because, sometimes something with less precision is easier to implement and understand. Or, once one reaches the optimum benefit in precision, additional precision adds no more value. Do you think your power meter would be more useful to you if it gave you your power down to .001 watt? How much precision is necessary? Such a meter would be more precise, but would it be more useful? How much further training benefit is gained from getting the increased accuracy of the SRM pro over the SRM amateur?Steve_B said:
No, if you read the original question I mentioned that when I posted the question somewhere else all there seemed to be was anecdotal evidence given in return. Why else would I have posted the question here if I wasn't looking to see if there might be some kind of "better" evidence for the tool? Seems there isn't.Steve_B said:
If he would have sold Power Cranks back in the early 90's he probably would have put sometime along the lines of "Person X rode 3 minutes faster over 25 miles after Power Crank use....". Power is 'the in thing' so it would be rather silly from an advertising point of view to put anything but power gains, no? If you put in a time variable then you'd get people complaining that "oh... how many more watts is that... why couldn't he have just put watts..."Steve_B said:
Is he really bad mouthing training with power? I don't think so... he even sells PowerCranks equiped with SRM power monitoring installed. If you'd read the question he originally posed he was more "questioning" why training with power is better than training with other methods of feedback.
I could put the case forward that I could do 80% of my training without a heart rate monitor and be in the correct ballpark in terms of intensity. I find that it's a useful tool to stop me from going too hard - rather than a tool to get me to ride harder. It was the same training with power on the trainer too. I've never used a power monitoring tool out of the road but I see that PowerTap dealers are offering a 1 week "test drive" of the 2.4 SL unit with wheel for a small fee - at some point this year I'll give that a go but given what my "goals" are for the year I don't really need one.
Conversely, I could also put the case forward that I don't need Power Cranks. I could force myself to try and pedal more effectively but that would require thinking about my technique 100% of the time. I can't do that when it's really hot outside and I'm climbing really steep hills. The fact that I'm still suffering with riding with these cranks and the fact that I'm no longer troubled by nagging lower back pain and ITB problems (that I suffered from for the last couple of years after getting back on the bike - and back in the 80's and 90's when I raced) proves to me that they're working out well for me. Forget the fact that I'm climbing way better than this time last year (at the same weight) but I feel better both on and off the bike. Ok, when I hit the 3 hour mark my hip flexors go into manditory suicide mode but eventually that'll pan out to 4, 5 or 6 hours.... eventually.
As for the "Swampy must have the near death experience" quote - some of you need to embrace Stuey O'Grady's mantra and wear the black wristbands that he had made for Team CSC that read "Harden the f*** up". * - inserted to keep the "content filter' at work happy. I found that if I didn't get the harder efforts in during training then my results didn't improve as fast or even improve at all. Was it due to the actual training effect or was it a mental thing and that riding a 10 or 25 as hard as I needed too, especially in the first quarter of the year, was too much of a shock to the system? Too be honest, I don't know. I didn't really like doing it but it got results. If I could find something that was less stressful and got the same results I'd use it in a heartbeat. But would I measure that heartbeat on a Polar HRM or a PowerTap?
bbrauer said:
No, because PC DO purport to actually improve your cycling performance and PM only purport to measure performance and improvement in performance and they do exactly as advertised and do it very accurately. they are a testing/feedback tool... an argument against using power meter is an argument wholesale against testing at all... of all the testing methods it's the best since it measures performance directly, and most accurately.
i think you could argue about relative value of power meters over other methods since they are expensive or the efficacy of testing at all (i think this is pretty well accepted as necessary) but you can't argue against the efficacy of power meters at measuring intensity, performance... power.. they measure power very well and this is what they purport to do and do, do.
PMs don't prescribe workouts or drills that would improve performance, they just report whether the intensity of the drill is what you think they should be and if the drills are effective and if performance is improving... they just let you know if what you are doing is working... i'm not saying that PC do or don't improve performance... but it would be very easy to check if they do especially in TT events.... if one wants to check the efficacy of PC they would use a power meter to check and see if using the PC are improving performance over time.
PC purport to force pedaling drills that directly improve performance... but there is no study that i know of actually demonstrate this objectively... no objective evidence that they do what they purport to do
PM have been tested and very accurately report power (what they purport to do)... is there any objective evidence that PC do what they purport to do i.e. improve cycling performance directly?
Frank, that is why I questioned what you wrote in post 119. In that post, you were asking for benefit "from the masses".Fday said:
That, by it's nature, is asking for anecdotal evidence. So you are contradicting your original intent, hence, that is why I said that you are moving the goalposts.
