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.

Actually, I tried a Powercrank demo at the track championships in LA a couple months ago and the rep said I probably was in the top %5 of effective users. Never been on PCs before; I've just practiced good technique over the years.Maybe 1 in 500 new users can get on them and go off for a 1 or 2 hour ride without much difficulty. One customer rode from seattle to portland on them on the 3rd ride. These people probably have much less to gain from the product. They have done their home work. Good for them.

We don't say it is impossible to develop this skill without PC's. It is just extremely difficult, to the point that most people, including the pros, have lots of room for improvement. However, it is not possible to know how good you really are at this skill without trying them.

The Spanish guy in question figured out how the file was adulterated and, probably by whom.What would be that person's motivation for doing so?

As previously mentioned, Frank posted to slowtwitch about his Spanish rider who had increased his FTP hugely via the use of Power Cranks and this was documented with a Power Tap. RChung realised upon analysing the file that the data had been tampered withRChung was also forwarded the unadulterated file. [...] You may confirm that with RChung if you like.
Ugh. I know many people think that slowtwitch thread is amusing. I think it's terribly depressing. I won't comment further on it.

You have a pretty low estimation of what it takes to win the TDF if you think that an increase of 40% power in a 20 minute test (Conconi protocol) would translate to win in a 3 week stage race.


i have no idea what a 20-minute test has to do with Conconi, or that, that was what you were suggesting (as i recalled you said a 40% increase in aerobic power). I'm not sure how a 40% increase in aerobic power wouldn't help you do well at the TdF, but even if you were missing e.g. a psychological component the average 2nd cat would still do extraordinarily well at the Tour. This hasn't been documented, and nor has any other increase in power apart from Frank testing on his Cateye turbo trainer which isn't verifiable, and some bloke (phil?) who went faster in a pursuit. In the 10 plus years (??) of selling PC this seems to be it (i.e. these are the two improvements you're always harping on about).


You live quite close to one of the major pros who is a big proponent of the PC's (Magnus Backstedt) yet seemingly find it impossible to meet with and talk with him about what he thinks about the product. What are you afraid of, the truth?

i don't live there anymore. but even if i did, i only ever saw him train on his SRMs and all the race photos i see of him (and some training photos) he's either using his SRM or standard team issue cranks


Hey, people tell us they are going to try something and we let people know. If they fail, so be it.


hmmmmm


Ugh, I misunderstood. It was a ST group ride, not a race. When I heard she was going to be riding the same mountain that weekend I thought she was doing the "race". She didn't show up because it wasn't a race, it was a ride. If she had shown up she would have kicked everyone's butt.


coulda, woulda, shoulda. wow! if i turned up at the TdF i'd kick everyone's butt. They have to stop me from turning up so as too not make the others look 'bad'.


RChung was also forwarded the unadulterated file. The Spanish guy in question figured out how the file was adulterated and, probably by whom. But, what happened, happened. The original file has been retrieved and submitted to both me and RChung to confirm that it is unadulterated. However, you will never see it as he ask both of us to keep it to ourselves as he was so pissed off at the whole scene, accusing him of deliberately lying. You may confirm that with RChung if you like.
Most probably.


don't recall that ending at slowtwitch. so, the file was tampered with by a 3rd party. Anyone call in Mulder and Scully?

If Robert wants to let me know, i'm sure he can contact me


But, the purpose of this thread was to put the "claims" regarding training with a power meter under scruitiny. Seems you have conveniently managed to ignore this, choosing instead to throw mud at unrelated issues.

not at all. the others have pointed out the point i would have made about power meters. you just don't get it.

ric

What it tells us is that there's no relationship between being a high caliber pro cyclist and a trained Powercranker. If it took Pinotti two months to adapt to Powercranks then the adaptations to all the years of training that made him a good pro were of a completely different nature.

So now we have pros who use PCs and need an adaptation period. Amateurs also need an adaptation period. But after training with PCs, they haven't improved at all, i.e., they haven't become pros.

If the adaptation PCs hope to force is pedaling in circles, we can conclude that pros don't pedal in circles and when amateurs learn to pedal in circles, they don't increase their power output 40% and become pros. In fact, they don't increase it at all.

This is consistent with studies on pedaling in circles and all that nonsense. Pros don't do it and it won't make you faster so buying PCs will just make you poorer. But if you fall for the PC gimmicks you probably make a lot of unwise financial decisions anyway.

However, if you were considering Powercranks, consider Smartcranks instead. They don't spam (at least to the best of my knowledge).No, SmartCranks just steal intellectual property. I am working on it. I understand that if you try to order from them now they are not available. Plus, the weak dollar don't make them a particularly good deal anymore. Anyhow, enough of this.

Hey, maybe you should go read Pinnotti's blog. He actually mentions some power improvements that he attributes to his PowerCranks, especially climbing ability. "Looking at my powermeter numbers, looks like my aerobic thesold power is about 10-15Watts more today than one year ago at the same time."

The question is not whether you are good now or not. But, rather, the question you should be asking is whether there is something more you could be doing to get even better, assuming you want to get "even better". Improving efficiency and technique are two areas that many riders can improve in. PC's help with this.

Whether you don't believe our 40% claim or do (it is directed to our average customer and relates to rather short term power benefits) is of little consequence. Should a top pro like Pinotti pass up an extra 15 watts in one year because he doesn't like what we claim to be able to do for the Cat-2-5's out there and, of course, triathletes?

I can - but probably 99+% of those that read the paper have been denied this information, due to the authors' unethical omission.



I don't think that there is anything petty about pointing out such ethical lapses.I do as it is the only thing you ever point out about the paper. It is how you "rebut" it. You never discuss the contents. This seems to be the only thing that interests you about the paper. Focusing on this allows you to avoid addressing the main finding that goes against one of your major biases. It is that simple I think.

Actually, it's a bit more than tradition, it's an ethical requirement.Requirement of (name organization here)? And, the penalty for failing in this "requirement"?

No, what is unethical is to fail to publically acknowledge such support when presenting one's findings, just as it is unethical to, e.g., bury any data you've collected that conflicts with the conclusions you've drawn. IOW, readers of a scientific paper have a right to know anything that might influence their interpretation of the results of a study...and this includes any financial support (in terms of money, goods, services), since it potentially represents a conflict of interest.That is the duty of the editors, also, to make sure the paper is transparent. It is not possible for an author to put all the raw data into a paper such that if it is misinterpreted it might be "hidden" yet not constitute an ethical breach. Papers are summaries of what happened. That is the purpose of disclosing methods and protocols so that anyone can repeat the study to see if the results are confirmed. It is what occurred to "debunk" the cold fusion results. If someone thinks the data is skewed because of this ethical lapse it would be easy for them to repeat the study, get alternative results, and publish them to prove this was a problem. No one has thought this was a big enough problem here to actually do this (besides the results might be confirmed and then they are in their own ethical dilemma if they don't publish) so let's just continue to trash the reputation of these people who came up with results "we" don't like.

I do as it is the only thing you ever point out about the paper. It is how you "rebut" it. You never discuss the contents. This seems to be the only thing that interests you about the paper. Focusing on this allows you to avoid addressing the main finding that goes against one of your major biases. It is that simple I think.

We've discussed the results ad nauseum, so there's no point revisting that issue. However, many here are probably unaware of the fact that you supported the study (since the authors failed to disclose it), so I feel obligated to do so.

That is the duty of the editors

No, it's the duty of the authors, as an editor has no way of knowing what financial conflicts might potentially exist.

You've clearly never determined how much of an effect wind, barometric pressure, temperature, clothing etc. can have upon rider speed and thus, how much of an effect they have upon traditional determinations of training progress. It's not super hard to do; there are even websites where you can do decent analyses of this. The power meter removes all those sources of error. Bottom line: it's much harder to be certain without a power meter.

As for trying to assess improvement with race results - it would seem that you have never actually done a significant amount of time doing mass-start racing, otherwise you would know that there are way too many factors influencing the outcome to make it a good indicator.

Of course, I (we) can say all this to you but you'll continue to beat your drum of ignorance....Sure I have (edit: considered the influences of the weather, etc and I have done zero mass start racing). but if you ride the same training loop everyday you learn that the results hardly ever vary by more than a minute when you take into account stop lights, etc. You learn what is "normal" for you for any given effort. Big short term changes and changes over time (the value of a training log here) are easily discerned. If you need a number to assess that improvement so be it. But, that number might be missing improvements in aerodynamics, if one is working on that also.

16 pages later and how many are sold on the effectiveness of PC's compared to PM's as a training aide?

Start a poll Frank and find out how many have changed their opinions with the start of this thread.

The people that might side with you maybe over at ebay pawning off their bike gear, but how are you going to convince guys on this thread that have already witnessed positive gains implementing a particular training program and tracking that data?

Requirement of (name organization here)?

Probably every scientific and/or medical society one can think of.

And, the penalty for failing in this "requirement"?

In the most egregious cases, expulsion from the society, and refusal to publish any papers in the future.

(Of course, being a physician you're probably used to operating in a world where drug companies will pay doctors to write up experiments for publication that they had nothing at all to do with conducting, thus allowing the drug company to pass off their in-house research as being an "independent university study". Indeed, it was this common practice up until the last decade or so ago that helped lead to the tightening of disclosure requirements across the board.)

Stop already!

Power is an exceptionally useful training metric, but not a training method, as so many have said.

If anything, PC and other techniques may lead to improved efficiency, which I know many folks here do not ascribe to; however, that is the real question in my mind. I have two bikes of the same weight/wheels set up differently and with 5 watts more on average I did over two minutes better on a 7km climb. There is something else going on there other than just watts/kg -- power doesn't explain it, but by being such an exact measure power gives a clue as to how to attempt to get at something that is harder to measure ...

You've clearly never determined how much of an effect wind, barometric pressure, temperature, clothing etc. can have upon rider speed and thus, how much of an effect they have upon traditional determinations of training progress. It's not super hard to do; there are even websites where you can do decent analyses of this. The power meter removes all those sources of error. Bottom line: it's much harder to be certain without a power meter.

As for trying to assess improvement with race results - it would seem that you have never actually done a significant amount of time doing mass-start racing, otherwise you would know that there are way too many factors influencing the outcome to make it a good indicator.

Of course, I (we) can say all this to you but you'll continue to beat your drum of ignorance....Sure I have. but if you ride the same training loop everyday you learn that the results hardly ever vary by more than a minute when you take into account stop lights, etc. You learn what is "normal" for you for any given effort. Big short term changes and changes over time (the value of a training log here) are easily discerned. If you need a number to assess that improvement so be it. But, that number might be missing improvements in aerodynamics, if one is working on that also.

What would be that person's motivation for doing so?Apparently a "practical joke". But, who knows. It is a fact it occurred. If someone asked you for one of your power files would you check it to see if it had been altered before you sent it on?

The unadulterated file support the original contention without the inconsistencies, as near as I can tell. Parts of the ride that were originally missing are now back in the file.

Well, in the absence of PMs, most riders thought cadence was important. Now we're englightened enough to recognize cadence for the red herring it is.But, isn't this cadence information that can be derived from a PM just pointing out what had been demonstrated in the lab over and over many years earlier. People just simply ignored this data preferring to ride by feel and logic. In fact, it appears it still happens, even at the highest levels, despite the supposed "utility" of the power meter which would help people to figure this out, as evidenced by the Ulmer anecdote. She trains with power, going for a world record. Mechanic makes a mistake and gives her a much bigger gear. She rides a a lower cadence and does much better than expected because she unexpectedly has more power. the power meter was not responsible for that improvement.

People see Lance riding at high cadences and think it is best for everyone.

Hmmm. So you're saying this your preferred order is:

1. Your own three month long trials.
2. Manufacturer's claims.

How many steps after (2) are there before you get to independent scientific research using randomized controlled trials?Hey, do you know of some regarding the use of the PM? That was what I was asking for back in post 1.

i have no idea what a 20-minute test has to do with Conconi, or that, that was what you were suggesting (as i recalled you said a 40% increase in aerobic power). I'm not sure how a 40% increase in aerobic power wouldn't help you do well at the TdF, but even if you were missing e.g. a psychological component the average 2nd cat would still do extraordinarily well at the Tour. This hasn't been documented, and nor has any other increase in power apart from Frank testing on his Cateye turbo trainer which isn't verifiable, and some bloke (phil?) who went faster in a pursuit. In the 10 plus years (??) of selling PC this seems to be it (i.e. these are the two improvements you're always harping on about).

ric
LOL. Let's see. To dominate the TDF what must a Cat 1 or 2 rider do.

1. turn pro
2. get on a team.
3. hope that team gets selected to the tour
4. get selected to represent the team at the tour
5. be selected to be the team leader so you are protected.
6. avoid crashes and other problems for 3 weeks.

Maybe now we can understand why this hasn't been "documented". LOL

Giving a Cat 2 rider a large increase in power is likely to cause numbers 1 and 2 to occur, if the rider is motivated for them to occur. Beyond that it is a crap shoot, ask Levi.

16 pages later and how many are sold on the effectiveness of PC's compared to PM's as a training aide?

Start a poll Frank and find out how many have changed their opinions with the start of this thread.

The people that might side with you maybe over at ebay pawning off their bike gear, but how are you going to convince guys on this thread that have already witnessed positive gains implementing a particular training program and tracking that data?This thread was started asking about the evidence regarding the usefulness of power meters. I did not bring up PC's. They are repeatedly brought up here as a way if diverting attention from the weakness of their positions regarding PM's. At least there are some studies regarding PC's. Shoot the messenger. Hmmm. Can't shoot the messenger let's lambast those crazy PC's. I will answer some of the crazy assertions when they appear. Thanks to you all for bringing up the name and keeping this thread hot. Any mention is free advertising, so they say. :-)