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

[bbrauer]

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.

Yes, I understand that; and that was essentially my argument in my other post below. However, there are many here and elsewhere, speaking independently of your particular point, who would claim that "buying a power meter is the single best thing you can do for your training, " just as we can witness breathless claims that "Powercranks improved my performance a gazillion percent." One is a stimulus/feedback tool, the other is a testing/feedback tool. Ultimately, a distinction without a difference.

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.

Yeah, and I guess the larger point Mr Powercrank was making was whether having such a precise measure of absolute performance in terms of wattage was absolutely essential. If I perform a set of 8x2 minute intervals at my best intensity, it really doesn't matter whether my power meter provides accurate feedback. In fact, I hide my computer under my towel when I perform them so I'm not tempted to look.

I would hesitate to claim that a power meter measures "intensity." It simply measures wattage - the power you're producing. It doesn't gauge your motivation or individual physiology. Intensity is a subjective measure of effort.

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.

I guess the larger question is whether you consider pedaling circles is an effective skill to develop to improve your cycling "efficiency" (I'm steering clear over the argument over the definition of efficiency). If you think a smooth pedal stroke is helpful, then the PCs absolutely work as a feedback tool to "report...if the drills are effective and performance is improving." If you can pedal PCs without screwing up, then you're doing what they're forcing you to do. If you don't, they let you know immediately.

 

[wiredued]

Couldn't I just lift my knees to unweight the pedals and save my money for a PT?

Is there "objective evidence" that PC's do what they purport to do, i.e., improve cycling performance directly? Yes! Independent University studies no less. Not many (yet). Here is a link to our page where we list available studies and other "relevant" studies.

 

[Steve_B]

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?

Everything else can be misleading for the reasons I mentioned here. They can be way off, to the point of looking like you are getting worse or not improving at all, not better or vice-versa. So yes, the precision is important to have in many circumstances.

Displayed precision to 0.001 watt would probably be questionable due to the errors involved in torque measurement. No one is suggesting that this is necessary. It is the precision over HRM or RPE or speedometer that is superior and, as I stated before, gives a clear, unambiguous indicator of success or failure.

 

[acoggan]

Is there "objective evidence" that PC's do what they purport to do, i.e., improve cycling performance directly? Yes! Independent University studies no less.

Didn't you provide financial support for at least one of those studies? And aren't there some studies that have reported contradictory results?

 

[acoggan]

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 think you're right...which is why it is oh-so-critical to distinguish between training by power and training (and racing) with a powermeter. Unless/until you do that, you'll never "get it" (as Frank apparently hasn't).

 

[acoggan]

Do you think your power meter would be more useful to you if it gave you your power down to .001 watt?

Most definitely, but not for the reasons you think.

 

[doctorSpoc]

Yes, I understand that; and that was essentially my argument in my other post below. However, there are many here and elsewhere, speaking independently of your particular point, who would claim that "buying a power meter is the single best thing you can do for your training, " just as we can witness breathless claims that "Powercranks improved my performance a gazillion percent." One is a stimulus/feedback tool, the other is a testing/feedback tool. Ultimately, a distinction without a difference.

if you buy into the belief that it's important to gauge your efforts and/or track improvement, test to know if your training is effective or not and to make adjustments etc.. then yes, a power meter is a god send... but it isn't responsible for the improvement in and of itself.. your training regime is.. PC are in effect a training regime in hardware form and is claimed to be responsible for the improvement in and of itself.. the two things are very different and not comparable... power cranks should be compared to other training regimes/drills.. in other words this is not a question of power vs power cranks it's a question of testing vs PC... power IS the best most suitable, accurate method of testing... the only question i can see is if you find value in the PM or not based on their price.

Yeah, and I guess the larger point Mr Powercrank was making was whether having such a precise measure of absolute performance in terms of wattage was absolutely essential. If I perform a set of 8x2 minute intervals at my best intensity, it really doesn't matter whether my power meter provides accurate feedback. In fact, I hide my computer under my towel when I perform them so I'm not tempted to look.

but how do you know if you are improving? next month you could be doing 50 W more or 50W less and not know it, but the interval would feel just as hard or even harder. how do you know if your training regime is effective or if it should be altered in some way? RPE is not effective at all to test improvement... it's not even a question of accuracy, it's a question of suitability for the task or tasks at all.

I would hesitate to claim that a power meter measures "intensity." It simply measures wattage - the power you're producing. It doesn't gauge your motivation or individual physiology. Intensity is a subjective measure of effort.

semantic aside... "subjective measure of effort" is irrelevant... adaptations are based on physiological stimulus... how hard it feels is irrelevant.. if i do 20 min at 250 W and i was on a good day with lots of rest and it felt easy... i still reap the benefits of doing 250W for 20mins.. if i'm tired and 20min at 200W was a death march... just because it felt harder is irrelevant.. i still only reap the benefits of doing 200W for 20mins... how hard it felt is irrelevant... this is why HR and RPE are unsuitable for the task at hand... is it important to know that last month i was able to do better than i was doing today? is it important to know in a 20min workout that if i go over power x i won't be able to complete my interval but if i notch down 5-10W which is imperceptible at the beginning of a 20min effort i will be able to complete it? again if you have an HR monitor or use RPE you've already bought into gauging performance is important... and if you've gone there, then power is the best most suitable in every instance and most accurate method of tracking it...

I guess the larger question is whether you consider pedaling circles is an effective skill to develop to improve your cycling "efficiency" (I'm steering clear over the argument over the definition of efficiency). If you think a smooth pedal stroke is helpful, then the PCs absolutely work as a feedback tool to "report...if the drills are effective and performance is improving." If you can pedal PCs without screwing up, then you're doing what they're forcing you to do. If you don't, they let you know immediately.

again whether one thinks pedaling in circles is beneficial or not is irrelevant, the only thing that matters is if you can actually perform better after using PCs or not... or if riding with PC beneficial but you can learn without them, but it's harder and you have to think more than with PC, could still find value in the ease of use... in a similar manner to how i believe the PMs just make your life easier when tracking performance..

 

[fergie]

I am a little confused.

Total agreement with you on that point.

This fellow learned something about how people actually race from using a powermeter which caused them to change the way they did their intervals. Why does this discovery mean that one needs the PM to change the way intervals are performed in training?

Did I say that? I said they were able to learn more about the demands of MTB using a SRM. You don't need a SRM or Powertap to perform intervals but if going for a specific effect the powermeter can show if you got it right.

So for my 3000m pursuit I will know if my ave power and cadence were where I was aiming. Coming off a cold I was doing intervals yesterday and felt strong (PE) and HR was in the zone. Power was down 35watts over normal. If I relied on HR or PE or psychic powers I might not have found out how far behind the eight ball I am at present.

Regarding Sarah Ulmer, how is it that a mistake by the mechanic caused Sarah to ride with a much larger gear and to a much faster race than was anticipated? Why hadn't the experimentation been done with a wide variety of gear sizes to determine the optimum for her for that event.

I wasn't part of the Sarah Ulmer process. But it is safe to say that a huge amount of experimentation was performed leading into 2004. I assume gearing was part of this. Yes perhaps if she had gone bigger she would have been World Champion sooner.

But it is clear that wattage was the primary metric used to measure training and any experimentation. From this the coaching team could predict she was on target for another World Record in Athens. Thanks to some pretty unique weather conditions and the venue she obliterated the record.

Sure she and her coaching team would have been nowhere near as precise with their calculations without SRM.

If that had been done any mistake by the mechanic would have been truly a mistake and would have slowed her down, not speeded her up.

Well not all mistakes have bad consequences I guess.

You ought to read those posts a little closer. I have hypothesized that the slowing in those races is due to a change in tactics, with people "holding back on the bike" some to "win on the run". I have hypothesized that the availability of PM's might have assisted some in "better managing" this slowing than if it were not present, that is all.

I am not a Triathlete. Perhaps you need to find out if riders are pacing themselves using the SRM or Powertap.

In road races I suggest my riders use their SRM or Powertap to ensure they are conserving maximum energy till they make their move. Whether this is go from the gun, on the final climb or the last 150m they can make a game of it to ensure they are tucked away in the bunch.

Congratulations. Even distance and endurance athletes can do more with less if they train properly. "Properly" doesn't always involve training with a power meter.

Yes, you make it sound as if the SRM or Powertap should be turning the pedals for you. All they do is measure and provide feedback. Some prefer instant feedback. As I have to race my 3000m by feel (not allowed to ride with a computer visible) I do my intervals by feel and use the power data later to confirm if I am on track.

Congratulations on your results and your ability to use this tool at the highest level with success. The intent of my original question, though, went more to, not whether any one person or coach had ever used it with success, but how successful overall the tool is when used by the masses.

Nearly everyone I coach uses a SRM, Powertap or Polar (with Power) and whether their goals are World domination or to be super fit for a ride in the Pyrennees at Tour time they benefit from using a power meter. Sure they haven't got a clue when they start out as it's still all a bit new for most people. But once they learn the lingo and understand the currency of wattage they make big progress.

I am sure you are not the only national team using the device. Why aren't all the other teams using the device setting new world records (or, at least, exceeding the old records) as yours is?

Ummm, they are. New World Records were set at World Champs this year. As suggested Ulmers WR was pretty unique and came from a very focused 9 month period leading into Athens coming off 10 years of world level participation.

Other records on track remain because they were also set in unique circumstances. The flying 200m is best attempted on Moscow with it's longer 333.33 distance and higher than normal bankings and the 4000m record was set in a riding position that is now banned. Funny they took the 1hour record off Boardman but not that one but stood in the way of Obree throughout his career.

Cool thing is that we are building up a database of power files from NZ riders at different tracks around the World so we know their individual characteristics. Manchester is heated well and has long straights so pursuiters can power the bends while ADT is air conditioned and has tight bends so pursuit times are slower and riders aim for slower times and use smaller gears.

Your answer raises another question in my mind. Can a user do it on their own? Or, is it necessary for a user of the device to sign up for "TrainingPeaks" or to have a savvy coach to see any or most of the benefits of the device? How does a typical user know how to best use the device?

Depends on how well you want to go. Even Eddy Merckx had a huge team of advisers guiding and monitoring his efforts. Lance had a large group behind him. Sure you can go it alone. I wish you luck.

With SRM or Powertap and TrainingPeaks I know I can provide more specific programmes, give better feedback and with the "performance manager" am developing psychic powers that can provide startlingly accurate predictions of what a rider is capable of doing in the future.

 

[Fday]

Frank, that is why I questioned what you wrote in post 119. In that post, you were asking for benefit "from the masses".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.

I was asking about benefit for the masses, not from the masses. Perhaps I mistyped. Anyhow, i seems to me that, unless the benefit is obvious (it is faster to fly to NY from LA than it is to drive) that usually a statistical analysis is required to demonstrate real benefit. So, the intent of the original question was to find out what the evidence really is for or against the argument that using a PM, however one might optimally use it, results in better improvement or performance, on average, than if one were to use a more "traditional" method of assessing effort.

 

[Alex Simmons]

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.

That's just it though - power meters (the key ones at least) have been extensively reviewed by many sports science bodies and they actually do what they claim to do, i.e. measure power to a level of claimed accuracy.

PCs do not live up to the claims made by their inventor and which still form the basis of claims made today i.e. "Cyclists: most increase cycling speed about 2-3 mph (that is about 40% in increased cycling power) in less than one season." and data presented on a public forum as evidence has been shown to be falsified.

Whether or not PCs actually have a beneficial effect on cycling performance has been lost in the fact that the claims made by the PC inventor are without basis, misleading to the extreme and data purported to support such claims was falsified.

Past behaviour is a tremendous indicator of what to expect in the future and it is no wonder people are highly skeptical of ANY claim made as to the efficacy of the product by its inventor.

Personally I prefer to play the ball rather than the man, but that's just my style.

 

[Fday]

I guess the larger question is whether you consider pedaling circles is an effective skill to develop to improve your cycling "efficiency" (I'm steering clear over the argument over the definition of efficiency). If you think a smooth pedal stroke is helpful, then the PCs absolutely work as a feedback tool to "report...if the drills are effective and performance is improving." If you can pedal PCs without screwing up, then you're doing what they're forcing you to do. If you don't, they let you know immediately.

While pedaling in circles issue may be a larger issue, it is not necessarily rightfully debated in this thread. It is possible that both PM's and PC's work wonderfully but that the combination of the two is the most powerful tool. Some of my customers think that. The purpose of the original question though was simply to find out what the best evidence is for the PM as a training tool (performance enhancement) tool.

 

[Fday]

Couldn't I just lift my knees to unweight the pedals and save my money for a PT?

Yes. Unfortunately for that approach, however, the evidence suggests that is a very difficult skill to learn without PC's. Ask almost any user.

 

[Fday]

Everything else can be misleading for the reasons I mentioned here. They can be way off, to the point of looking like you are getting worse or not improving at all, not better or vice-versa. So yes, the precision is important to have in many circumstances.

Displayed precision to 0.001 watt would probably be questionable due to the errors involved in torque measurement. No one is suggesting that this is necessary. It is the precision over HRM or RPE or speedometer that is superior and, as I stated before, gives a clear, unambiguous indicator of success or failure.

Sure people are suggesting that measurement to 0.001 watt might be necessary when they suggest that more precision is always better.

The question is how much precision is necessary and when does "more precision" become redundant and totally unnecessary.

 

[Fday]

Didn't you provide financial support for at least one of those studies? And aren't there some studies that have reported contradictory results?

If you consider providing product to a researcher so he can study the product "financial support" then the answer is, yes.

If you would like to discuss these studies, their strengths, weaknesses, and findings, and whether the findings are contradictory I will be happy to do so. However, I would suggest you start another thread for this purpose.

The purpose of this thread is to see what the evidence is for or against power meters.

 

[Fday]

I think you're right...which is why it is oh-so-critical to distinguish between training by power and training (and racing) with a powermeter. Unless/until you do that, you'll never "get it" (as Frank apparently hasn't).

This thread isn't about what I "get" or "don't get". It is supposed to be to find out what evidence exists (other than anecdotal evidence, hopefully) to support using a power meter, however it might be best employed.

 

[acoggan]

If you consider providing product to a researcher so he can study the product "financial support" then the answer is, yes.

That is financial support - too bad the investigators violated the ethics of their profession for failing to reveal this fact.

If you would like to discuss these studies, their strengths, weaknesses, and findings, and whether the findings are contradictory I will be happy to do so. However, I would suggest you start another thread for this purpose.

You can never keep your comments on-topic, so why should I have to?

 

[Fday]

Most definitely, but not for the reasons you think.

I don't think I would even care to hazard a guess as to why you might think such precision beneficial.

 

[acoggan]

I don't think I would even care to hazard a guess as to why you might think such precision beneficial.

If you understood the difference between training by power and training (and racing) with a powermeter, you wouldn't have to guess.

 

[acoggan]

This thread isn't about what I "get" or "don't get".

Actually, it is - that is, if you "got it" you never would have posed the question in the first place.

 

[Fday]

That is financial support - too bad the investigators violated the ethics of their profession for failing to reveal this fact.

Ah yes, belittle others in any way you can, as if there was some nefarious intent to that ommission. Anyhow, the data speaks for itself and whether the author failed to reveal the "financial relationship" when published, it has been revealed by me. There is nothing to hide. You may interpret the data now knowing full well that "financial relationship" existed. LOL.

It is quite sad that someone of such supposed academic stature repeatedly reveals himself to be quite petty.