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

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.

Hmmm, no surprises there."SmartCranks use a free running bearing to promote independent pedal work by each leg during cycling. This system is designed for training the upstroke phase during cycling. The effects of training with SmartCranks on the power output (PO) and on cycle work distribution at the anaerobic threshold and the maximum power level were examined. Twenty male, non-professional cyclists were randomly assigned into intervention and control group, training 5 weeks with SmartCranks and conventional cranks, respectively. Before and after the training period the subjects performed an incremental test to exhaustion. Lactate was measured to determine the individual anaerobic threshold (IAT) and forces at the pedal were recorded to quantify changes in the work distribution over the full revolution. We observed no significant statistical difference for peak power (PO; 333.3 +/- 32.8 W vs. 323.3 +/- 21.8 W) and PO at IAT (229.6 +/- 30.1 W vs. 222.7 +/- 25.2 W) for SmartCrank and control conditions, respectively (P > 0.05). However, we did observe that work distribution in the downward phase was significantly reduced in the SmartCranks training group at peak PO (from 70.0 +/- 4.9% to 64.3 +/- 5.8%; P < 0.05). Although the possible implications of the change in the work distribution of sectors are not known, for the success in cycling performance-indicated by the PO-training with the SmartCranks was not more advantageous than training with conventional bicycle cranks."

After 5 weeks I would have been lucky to complete a test to exhaustion on PowerCranks - unless it was less that 5 minutes. :eek:

You could always say that if you took some random cyclists and got one group to train with a power meter, another to train with a heart rate monitor and another on PE and got them to train the same for 5 weeks, you'd see no statistical difference.... Come on, what can you really do in 5 weeks? Feck all... Lets get a bit or perspective here folks. Please...

After 5 months I find that I no longer "think" about pulling up, I spend more time concentrating on pushing the pedals over the top and down as hard as possible because I know that I'm unweighting the pedals enough to get them back up again... Because I learned to recruit my hamstrings more, the pulling through at the bottom of the stroke is automatic. It's very liberating - you don't think, you just do.

What is "scary" is the out of the saddle action. I can only manage about 30 seconds but it's something akin to trying to run on a log - in water LOL. Once it's started you keep going until you lose your nerve or smash your nads into the end of the saddle.... yeah yeah yeah... I gotta practise more. The odd thing is that I don't feel like I've done a 30 second sprint but you gotta start in a bigger gear than you'd be in on a climb if you were sat down pedalling - if I was pedaling in a 24 then I'd put it in a 19.

What's funny is that I was considering getting a VO2 max test done at UC Davis every six months, to get some "numbers" but then I thought - "why"? I could spend that $700 a year or whatever it is on something useful.

Yeh, especially when you see the protocol. LOL If one expects to see benefit from a product on might actually want to read and follow the directions. PC's won't make you faster if you buy them and put them under your pillow. Same, I suspect, with a PM.Well, the protocol was a randomized controlled test, RCTs are generally acknowledged as the gold standard for experimental design, and the key variable being investigated was power output (as opposed to, e.g., gross efficiency). Importantly, Hamish snipped a part of the results section that is actually kind of critical: "However, we did observe that work distribution in the downward phase was significantly reduced in the SmartCranks training group at peak PO." This is critical because it means that even after a short study period the pattern of force application changed in exactly the way that the cranks were designed to elicit. That means the bottom line is the cranks worked as intended -- yet power output didn't change.

What's funny is that I was considering getting a VO2 max test done at UC Davis every six months, to get some "numbers" but then I thought - "why"? I could spend that $700 a year or whatever it is on something useful.
Whereas every ride with my power meter is a lab test. No anecdotes just hard data. I know today's ride was far better than yesterday. It don't suspect it was better, I don't feel I was going hard enough, I don't assume I achieved my training goals I have some excellent proof I did.

I can also compare today's performance with how I plan to ride at Masters Track Worlds in October and feel reassured that while I am miles off I am at least on the right path.

Thanks to my performance manager in TrainingPeaks I will be able to carefully track my training load to ensure I get the balance right.

Crikey Swampy, 5 weeks is a lifetime in cycling. This amount of focused training should lead to some improvement and I am actually surprised that the control group didn't go better as they were training specifically. Novelty effect?

Well, the protocol was a randomized controlled test, RCTs are generally acknowledged as the gold standard for experimental design, and the key variable being investigated was power output (as opposed to, e.g., gross efficiency). Importantly, Hamish snipped a part of the results section that is actually kind of critical: "However, we did observe that work distribution in the downward phase was significantly reduced in the SmartCranks training group at peak PO." This is critical because it means that even after a short study period the pattern of force application changed in exactly the way that the cranks were designed to elicit. That means the bottom line is the cranks worked as intended -- yet power output didn't change.What would be interesting is a follow up to that study. 5 weeks on these cranks is nothing short of useless... If you take "anything" that you've become accustomed to for many years and try and change it in just over a month and then expect improvement, then I think you're in for a huge dissapointment.

If you put both power meters and heart rate monitors under than micro-scrutany then noone would be using either....

Whereas every ride with my power meter is a lab test. No anecdotes just hard data. I know today's ride was far better than yesterday. It don't suspect it was better, I don't feel I was going hard enough, I don't assume I achieved my training goals I have some excellent proof I did.

I can also compare today's performance with how I plan to ride at Masters Track Worlds in October and feel reassured that while I am miles off I am at least on the right path.

Thanks to my performance manager in TrainingPeaks I will be able to carefully track my training load to ensure I get the balance right.

Crikey Swampy, 5 weeks is a lifetime in cycling. This amount of focused training should lead to some improvement and I am actually surprised that the control group didn't go better as they were training specifically. Novelty effect?5 weeks is a lifetime if you're dealing with "the known." 5 weeks of specific training for an event can make a significant difference.... but when you're dealing with something that you're not used too then 5 weeks becomes meaningless. I spent 3 months getting comfortable with powercranks. I spent 4 months learning how to brake properly with my left foot in car racing (of which I became a regional champion in my class, in the most competitive region in the US) - something as simple as using your left foot instead of the right to brake - it aint rocket science but it takes time. I mean it's just pressing a pedal "x" amout - but it's something new for the ol' left foot. When people start to race bikes and you tell them to pedal at ~95rpm whilst the top of their head is level with their ass for an hour - they don't get like that in 5 weeks now do they?

Marco Pinoti regularly posts on the PowerCranks blogs and had this to post "After 8 weeks I reached a point where I could do a complete 3hr training without being death in the end." Broken english aside, the guy is a Pro - Current Italian Time Trial champion, Pro Rider since 1999, 3 times Tour de France veteran, 3 times Giro d'Italia veteran, 1 time Vuelta Espana veteran, now riding with Team High Road - but it takes someone like that two months to be able to train for 3 hours properly on these things, what does that mean for the mere bottomfeeders like us? LOL.

Now, you were saying about that "5 weeks".

If you put both power meters and heart rate monitors under than micro-scrutany then noone would be using either....It doesn't take five weeks to prove that a power meter measures power very well, and a heart rate monitor measures heart rate very well, which is what both of these items purport to do.

Why shouldn't PCs be put under scrutiny when the inventor claims 40% improvement in power output? All we know from the evidence provided is that PCs change the way force is applied around the pedal stroke. so what? That in itself does not lead to more power.

5 weeks is a lifetime if you're dealing with "the known." 5 weeks of specific training for an event can make a significant difference.... but when you're dealing with something that you're not used too then 5 weeks becomes meaningless. I spent 3 months getting comfortable with powercranks.Brent Rushall often makes the comment that if a form of training is non specific you will experience muscle soreness. Sounds likes training with a Powercrank makes you better at (pause for effect) riding with a Powercrank.


Marco Pinoti regularly posts on the PowerCranks blogs and had this to post "After 8 weeks I reached a point where I could do a complete 3hr training without being death in the end." Broken english aside, the guy is a Pro - Current Italian Time Trial champion, Pro Rider since 1999, 3 times Tour de France veteran, 3 times Giro d'Italia veteran, 1 time Vuelta Espana veteran, now riding with Team High Road - but it takes someone like that two months to be able to train for 3 hours properly on these things, what does that mean for the mere bottomfeeders like us? LOL.

Now, you were saying about that "5 weeks".Based on a scientific study of 1 person we can conclude that Italians are slow learners?

But just so you don't think I am anti Powercranks I also don't do weights, big gear efforts, high cadence efforts, motorpacing, cross training and anything else that people claim makes them go faster on the bike. Just coach a lot of people to success including the odd World Champion. Hmmm perhaps I need an infomercial.

5 weeks on these cranks is nothing short of useless... If you take "anything" that you've become accustomed to for many years and try and change it in just over a month and then expect improvement, then I think you're in for a huge dissapointment. You're making two points: first, that a five week test is "nothing short of useless," and second, that you think anyone expecting improvement in five weeks will be disappointed.

1. The actual results of an actual randomized controlled study say different: something the cyclists had become accustomed to for many years changed in just over a month and it changed in exactly the way that the cranks are intended to elicit a change.

2. The PC group did improve over the 5 week period. However, the non-PC group also improved, and just as much.

I think you're 0-for-2 on this.

Why are powercranks even being talked about? Anything to do with power meters? HR monitors, PRE? No? What a surprise.

Back to the OP. I think that there can be no evidence that training with power is superior to any other method. It would be akin to asking if a set of scales is a superior way to loose weight or a measuring cup. It does not make you loose weight, you can loose weight without one. Some people will be very successful in loosing weight having never even looked at either one! :eek:

What the scales do is allow a more exacting approach to be taken and measured either for those who do not have innate ability to judge the exact amount by feel, or simply by those who prefer a more specific approach the scales have over the measuring cup.

Success will still be accomplished because of or in spite of these tools.

Power meters will probably increase in usage do to one fact - the data is absolute. A watt is a watt. Makes things so much more simple!

Why are powercranks even being talked about? Anything to do with power meters? HR monitors, PRE? No? What a surprise.

Frank posted and as I said about 14 pages ago, the old women with manbags came out and started on the PowerCrank deal.

Brent Rushall often makes the comment that if a form of training is non specific you will experience muscle soreness. Sounds likes training with a Powercrank makes you better at (pause for effect) riding with a Powercrank.

Based on a scientific study of 1 person we can conclude that Italians are slow learners?

But just so you don't think I am anti Powercranks I also don't do weights, big gear efforts, high cadence efforts, motorpacing, cross training and anything else that people claim makes them go faster on the bike. Just coach a lot of people to success including the odd World Champion. Hmmm perhaps I need an infomercial.Scientific study? I was talking about a blog entry.... If you hadn't noticed Marco doesn't race with PowerCranks.

Who is Brent Rushell?

Just an exercise physiologist. But what would they know?

You're making two points: first, that a five week test is "nothing short of useless," and second, that you think anyone expecting improvement in five weeks will be disappointed.

1. The actual results of an actual randomized controlled study say different: something the cyclists had become accustomed to for many years changed in just over a month and it changed in exactly the way that the cranks are intended to elicit a change.

2. The PC group did improve over the 5 week period. However, the non-PC group also improved, and just as much.

I think you're 0-for-2 on this.If you've never ridden them I guess you won't "get it", just like Andy says that Frank doesn't "get it".... but it's akin to learning to write with your "other" hand. You know what motions you're supposed to do, how the letters are formed - heck you've done it a million times... but when you do it you're fumbling, scribbling like a drunken spider stumbled through the ink well...

I don't expect anything in 5 weeks. I wasn't expecting anything in 2 months when I bought them, I'm happy with the results thus far but I'm happier that I'm no longer having to deal with the lower back pain and ITB pain that my old physio said was due to a muscle imbalance. But enough of my commentary....

Do we have any specifics on this test? I'm going to play devils advocate here and do what every man and his dog does on this board and ask about "the details". What were the test conditions - time of test, rate of incremental power increase, was cadence fixed? The last point is more relevant on independantly rotating cranks than you could possibly imagine if you've never ridden on them.

As I already pointed out way way earlier, you do spend a lot of time initially focusing on pulling up. Why? Because you've never had to focus on doing this before. There's a huge difference between "thinking" you're doing it on a set of regular cranks and actually doing it when the cranks are independant.

We've already assertained, over the many many threads that it doesn't take a huge amount of torque to rotate a set of cranks at a given power. If you're a fast chappie then you're probably looking at about what, 80 or 90newton meters? If you're sitting on an ergometer in a nice uprightish position and you have a choice of cadence then the independantly rotating crank group will stuff it in a big gear and muscle it around.... Random amateur cyclists probably don't produce that amount of torque on a regular basis at 90+rpm. If forced to ride at 95rpm I'd hazzard a guess that a few of the independantly rotating cranks group wouldn't have even finished.

Funnily enough, when I posted something about power and going up hills a while back on here, I was told that lower rpm, bigger gear and slow cadence uphills would often lead to a higher than normal power output. No one uttered advice to the contrary.... no one.

But lets go back to the begining of the "study"

SmartCranks use a free running bearing to promote independent pedal work by each leg during cycling. This system is designed for training the upstroke phase during cycling.

Fair enough. They do promote independant pedalling but what I have found is that after the initial adaptation period, which was way more than 5 weeks for me, you forget about pulling up and spend more "quality" time where it counts and since then is where my gains have been realized. It sounds like it took a good few weeks for the current Italian time trail champion. If guys like that can't pedal, it really doesn't give the rest of us a bunch of hope does it?

It doesn't take five weeks to prove that a power meter measures power very well, and a heart rate monitor measures heart rate very well, which is what both of these items purport to do.

Why shouldn't PCs be put under scrutiny when the inventor claims 40% improvement in power output? All we know from the evidence provided is that PCs change the way force is applied around the pedal stroke. so what? That in itself does not lead to more power.I didn't have you down as a pedantic type... but hey, whatever floats your boat. ;)

I could measure heart rate all day long at it'd do basically nothing for me. I could look at 350 watts going up a hill and I'd still be a slow fat guy who can't climb for sh*t right now. But as they say it's not what you got, it's what you do with it... I think "proved" I got that point about 4 hours and 14 pages ago.... Come up with something new why don't ya.

Funny, the original poster said nothing about PowerCranks and y'all turned it into the usual Spanish inquisition-esque witch hunt on Power Cranks that happens everytime that Frank posts (even if he doesn't mention PowerCranks) but since y'all are riding on Andy's coat-tails I'd expect nothing less. ;)

.... then YOU had the audacity to complain about SPAM even though Frank didn't post about PC's! The nerve. LOL.

I guess it'll be a group manbag bashing at dawn for those who oppose the "popular view" of the board. :p

Time for my beauty sleep... gawd knows after 10,000ft of climbing at the weekend and a face (and gut) like Shrek, I need it. Ok, my belly is a little smaller than fergies but not much....

Just an exercise physiologist. But what would they know?Oh silly me, I was just chatting to him in the local boozer the other night. How silly of me to not remember the name! :D

One would hope exercise physiology, although a title is not really an indication of how good they are. I know people here in northern california who pay good money for cycle coaching but you'd swear that whomever gave the advice specialized in make swiss cheese and fine wine.....

.... and no, said "coaches" don't live in Napa. :p

I didn't have you down as a pedantic type... but hey, whatever floats your boat. ;)

...snip...

.... then YOU had the audacity to complain about SPAM even though Frank didn't post about PC's! The nerve. LOL.yeah, you are right, it was you that mentioned the cranks on post number two of this thread. Then Frank took you up on post number three:D

I guess it'll be a group manbag bashing at dawn for those who oppose the "popular view" of the board. :pOhh poor Swampy. We have been pretty decent about Frank and his claims. Don't go and lose the plot on us now. You haven't made any points that can be backed up. Neither has Frank. In fact a wattage file presented to show the "benefits" of PCs was clearly doctored. Pretty sad really. Sorry if us fitness professionals seem to be Hell bent on bursting your bubble but we have a duty to provide people with the best information so they can invest their time, money and cycling based emotions wisely.

We have done a pretty darned good job of providing the evidence that training with power is a very effective way to improve as cyclist. I am not going to lose any sleep if you or Frank choose to ignore it. We have also saved people the necessity of trying PCs as there is a ton of good research that will show that specificity of training is paramount and whatever gimmick you want to try whether it is different cranks, secret training methods or balancing a beachball on your nose all that effort is going to achieve is making you better at that specific task.

I look forward to seeing further developments in the PCs saga as I flick through infomercials as I struggle to find something decent on TV. Just don't expect to pass off anecdotes here as evidence without getting called on it!

Well, I guess one would study the method of using them to see if one method of use might result in more benefit over another method or comparing one of these uses to another, more traditional, way of training. For instance, some here have specified that certain uses are better than others (one here has even written a book on the subject).I read Andy and Hunter's book and, again, I don't think there's anything in there specifying certain methods of training only how to use a power meter as an information source. However you seem stuck on beating that non-existent drum...

What I am puzzled by is why you are now all the sudden on the war path against the use of power meters. (You've gone beyond masking it as inquiry based upon some of your statements.) You admit that power measurement is "the" reference but think it just might be unnecessary for people to use. However, if someone wants to use one, why do you give a rat's ass anyway? If someone wants to have more and better information (and you admitted that it is the best information) at their fingertips, why does it matter to you?

I don't expect anything in 5 weeks.What do you think of the Luttrell and Potteiger study (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=14666944&dopt=Abstract) that Frank has been touting for the last five years? You know, the one whose study period was -- um, let's see now; oh, yeah -- 6 weeks?

After 5 weeks I would have been lucky to complete a test to exhaustion on PowerCranks - unless it was less that 5 minutes.I'm sure that's true, but it's irrelevant. Both the pre- and post-training tests were done with standard cranks.