Power Coach vs Cyclingpeaks

Since 2001, over 90,000 cyclist's have joined Cycling Forums to discuss topics from general cycling to equipment, training, racing and travel or vacation destinations (especially in europe during the tour de france). We also feature an great deals in our online store, 100's of articles, classifieds and product reviews.

Here I am again "stirring the pot" :D

Got a good PM(below) from a bro in Europe.

For those that don't know it is widely accepted that Paul Koechli is the grand master of all coaches in Europe. Both Lemond and Hinualt still call him "The Master" even though LeMond probably lost a tour due to him protecting Hinualt.




"I met Koechli last year and I am using Powercoach since then.
Compared to Cyclingpeaks, Powercoach is more complex.
Koechli believes that all of the trainingparameters are important (Power, cadans, speed, HR).
I think Coggan and Stern don't understand this (Cyclingpeaks only thinks about Power). There is a difference between riding 200W@120rpm and 200W@70rpm there is even a difference in 200W@100rpm climbing at 20km/h and 200W@100rpm downhill at 60 km/h (bodyposition, balance etc).
Both of the programms have their pros and cons, Cyclingpeaks is userfriendly but I think PowerCoach is far more professional.
PS: Sorry, I know my english isn't perfect."

I didn't see Power Coach.

But if you're trying to compare (favorably or not) this software, you first have to understand that CyclingPeaks it's not a planning tool (even though I'm thinking about tricking it a bit).

Again I haven't seen Power Coach but if it's possible let's say to schedule a season, split it into phases go down to individual microcycle planning and even down to session planning (could be useful when the riders leave for a training camp without you. You may have to print 40 workouts in advance you know), then of course it's more complex than CyclingPeaks.

Bottom line is that it's just a piece of software.

Did you try it Power Coach? Is it a planning tool? Download it, try it and tell us :)

I'm sold. Where can I send my $580?

solarenergy@hotmail.com :)

Here I am again "stirring the pot" :D

Got a good PM(below) from a bro in Europe.

For those that don't know it is widely accepted that Paul Koechli is the grand master of all coaches in Europe. Both Lemond and Hinualt still call him "The Master" even though LeMond probably lost a tour due to him protecting Hinualt.




"I met Koechli last year and I am using Powercoach since then.
Compared to Cyclingpeaks, Powercoach is more complex.
Koechli believes that all of the trainingparameters are important (Power, cadans, speed, HR).
I think Coggan and Stern don't understand this (Cyclingpeaks only thinks about Power). There is a difference between riding 200W@120rpm and 200W@70rpm there is even a difference in 200W@100rpm climbing at 20km/h and 200W@100rpm downhill at 60 km/h (bodyposition, balance etc).
Both of the programms have their pros and cons, Cyclingpeaks is userfriendly but I think PowerCoach is far more professional.
PS: Sorry, I know my english isn't perfect."
A couple points:

I'm not at all familiar with PowerCoach, but, since it doesn't have NP, that makes it next to useless in my mind. 80% of the benefit of a PM for me is NP and everything that comes from it, especially the PMC chart.

I'm also not too familiar with Koechli. From what I've read of Lemond's training, it doesn't sound like anything too exceptional. I'd be interested to know how he's adapted since then. The whole "grand master" argument doesn't hold much weight with me-you might say the same thing about Chris Carmichael here in the U.S. And, just because he coached a few world class pros doesn't really impress me. How hard is it to coach someone who already is one of the most talented athletes in the world?

The whole wattage vs. hr vs. speed vs. cadence vs. whatever else thing has been hashed out numerous times. Ric, Andy, and others have done more than enough to convince me of their view. Maybe the proponents of power/cadence/heart rate training could do the same and give their reasons the same level of physiology backing it?

Oh, yeah, and $100 really beats $580. Hell, that's more than I paid for my power meter!

It's beginning to sound a lot like spam!

Koechli believes that all of the trainingparameters are important (Power, cadans, speed, HR).
I think Coggan and Stern don't understand this

Tell your "bro" that there's a difference between not understanding something and not believing something. :)

Tell your "bro" that there's a difference between not understanding something and not believing something. :)


Good answer, I was waiting for that.
:)

I think Coggan and Stern don't understand this (Cyclingpeaks only thinks about Power). There is a difference between riding 200W@120rpm and 200W@70rpm there is even a difference in 200W@100rpm climbing at 20km/h and 200W@100rpm downhill at 60 km/h

i believe we both understand that...two words: quadrant analysis.

i believe we both understand that...two words: quadrant analysis.

And that, of course, is just a 2D representation of things. I presented a 3D surface plot of pedal speed vs. pedal force vs. time at the first-ever power-based training seminar hosted by USA Cycling, but it was clear from the deer-caught-in-the-headlights look of many members of the audience that that wasn't sufficiently understandable to most people.

And that, of course, is just a 2D representation of things. I presented a 3D surface plot of pedal speed vs. pedal force vs. time at the first-ever power-based training seminar hosted by USA Cycling, but it was clear from the deer-caught-in-the-headlights look of many members of the audience that that wasn't sufficiently understandable to most people.

perhaps, now power meters have been granted a wider audience, it may be worth representing the 3D plots?

ric

perhaps, now power meters have been granted a wider audience, it may be worth representing the 3D plots?

ricI believe they are represented in PowerCoach

i believe we both understand that...two words: quadrant analysis.I don't think this is represented in CyclingPeaks (correct me if I am wrong), although it seems very important to me.

but it was clear from the deer-caught-in-the-headlights look of many members of the audience that that wasn't sufficiently understandable to most people.[/QUOTE]
This doesn't make them useless for all of the powermeter-users.
I think if you are coaching, they are very helpfull

I'm sold. Where can I send my $580?It's free when you buy a powermeter at their shop.

It's free when you buy a powermeter at their shop.


WOW...that's great!
:)

perhaps, now power meters have been granted a wider audience, it may be worth representing the 3D plots?

ric

Perhaps. However, one thing I've noticed lately is that there's a 2nd generation of powermeter adopters coming along, and they're facing quite the uphill battle trying to wrap their minds around all the analytical tools that are now available. Those who "grew up" with them/as they were introduced didn't have to digest them all at once.

I believe they are represented in PowerCoach

As best as I've been able to determine, that seems to be the PowerCoach program's primary "innovation". I say that, however, having never actually used the program, though not for want of trying.

I don't think this is represented in CyclingPeaks (correct me if I am wrong), although it seems very important to me.

It is, however, "represented" here:

http://home.earthlink.net/~acoggan/quadrantanalysis

and here:

http://www.cyclingpeakssoftware.com/power411/quad.asp

and the latter site even includes a couple of Excel templates to do the "heavy lifting" for you.

but it was clear from the deer-caught-in-the-headlights look of many members of the audience that that wasn't sufficiently understandable to most people.
This doesn't make them useless for all of the powermeter-users.
I think if you are coaching, they are very helpfull[/QUOTE]

Can you expand on why you believe this to be true?