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.

And we have supplied a fairly decent amount of hard data to show that it does. I guess I missed all the "hard data". Hard data I guess is subject to interpretation.

I am a little confused by your post. Are you implying that when one is using PowerCranks one is not really cycling but only "replicating" cycling? Or, that it is not possible to do "well-designed" intervals targeting hill climbing using PowerCranks, since you suggest he "should try it"?Sorry you must have missed that emg pic from the smart cranks and normal pedalling showing it was totally different. I wouldn't even call if replicating. Mimicking more like it. Plenty of good research showing training specificity is paramount.

Just the same as the studies I listed showing that SRM, Powertap and Polar do as they claim they do.

I would confidently wager that a well designed set of intervals targeting hill climbing would reap far greater rewards than doing any alternative form of intervals. You should try it. Though considering the forum we are posting in we would expect power data (unaltered) to confirm the results!
Funny that I was introduced to "well designed sets of intervals" back in 1986 when I met with my coach. He started doing "well designed sets of intervals" back in the days of yore and had papers published, quoting power, back in 1972. Using said intervals as well as other training, he's had riders finish top 20 in the Tour, national champions, commonweath games medal winners and all that good stuff....

... but one of the best things he passed on, was the ability to decipher what works for a rider and what doesn't. What's worthy of a test and what isn't.

If you want me to post power data, send me a power measuring device, or send me a set of QA-1 double adjustable coilover shocks for my old Camaro so I can free up my money for that project to a power measuring device.

But if you'd read any of my posts you would have noticed that my main priority right now is to get rid of my lard ass, which is why intervals aren't really what I'm looking at right now. But you're a coach, you should know that right. ;) If I may humbly add, it looks like you could do with getting rid of a few pounds too.

Sorry you must have missed that emg pic from the smart cranks and normal pedalling showing it was totally different. I wouldn't even call if replicating. Mimicking more like it. Plenty of good research showing training specificity is paramount.

Just the same as the studies I listed showing that SRM, Powertap and Polar do as they claim they do.I take substantial exception to those little EMG drawings from the SC page. It is some persons fantasy. To indicate that the HF muscles do no work now on regular cranks and that the hamstrings never get to relax on PC's is just pure BS. It was hardly worth commenting on until you brought it up. Anyhow, there is an actual study that has been perfomed looking at this very thing that I have been told has been accepted for publication. A power point presentation of what they have done is available here (http://www.powercranks.com/v4pages/science-lateststudies.htm#Italianstudy).

Actually, you don't need that little EMG drawing to understand that PC's are "totally different" and actually change how you pedal. They just are not as totally different as represented by the SC drawing. That is all marketing. It doesn't represent reality. All you have to do is get on a pair. Why do you presume different is worse? We say it is better. Where is your evidence we are wrong? And, exactly what is an EMG supposed to look like for "proper" cycling.

Anyhow, cycling is being on a bicycle and making the cranks go around to make the bike go forward. Wouldn't that be a good definition of "cycling". What is your evidence of what the EMG should look like for a "proper" cycling action?

Swampy is, I am sure, getting a big kick out of your pronouncements.

That is all marketing. It doesn't represent reality. now ain't that a good quote:D

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?
I'm not sure of too many pieces of equipment that require randomized controlled trials.....

Equipment such as wheels, frames, regular cranks, brakes etc normally only require normal mechanical or aerodynamic testing. Show me some randomized controlled trials on those... As I said in another post, sources such as Cycling Science were great, but there's plenty of test results available out there.

I bought a comfy lightweight saddle a while back to replace the aging San Marco Regal whose foam had lost it's "spring" - should I have sought the advice of a double blind, randomized controlled trial on the opinions of 265 pairs of buttock cheeks? Of course I didn't. Nor would I for most of the equipment that adorns my bike.... I read a few reviews, took a look at what seems to be popular with the Pros and used past experience with prior purchases. I've had good luck with Specialized (trispoke wheels, shoes, helmets etc) so I bought one of their Toupe saddles. I now have a happy ass.

I can see methods of training requiring randomized controlled studies to prove the concept of the training. Of course I'm talking about the actual training and not the methods of monitoring....

I can see methods of training requiring randomized controlled studies to prove the concept of the training. Of course I'm talking about the actual training and not the methods of monitoring....Of course, what I originally asked was whether the method of monitoring of the actual training makes a difference. You would have thought I had asked of what proof is there of God in front of the Pope, for all the furor. It was a simple question that invoked a lot of emotion.

Why do you presume different is worse? We say it is better. Where is your evidence we are wrong? Umm the studies I listed showing a difference between experienced cyclists and untrained and between cyclists and triathletes doing a similar training load on the bike. Would appear the more cycling you do makes you better at cycling or the less things interfering with cycling (like training for running and swimming) make you a better cyclist. You convieniently missed those as well.

Some good research on very simple skills like using a weighted basketball doesn't improve ones ability to throw a normal basketball or using a weighted baseball bat doesn't improve ones ability to hit the ball any further.

It was a simple question that invoked a lot of emotion.Mostly hilarity.:D

Umm the studies I listed showing a difference between experienced cyclists and untrained and between cyclists and triathletes doing a similar training load on the bike. Would appear the more cycling you do makes you better at cycling or the less things interfering with cycling (like training for running and swimming) make you a better cyclist. You convieniently missed those as well.

Some good research on very simple skills like using a weighted basketball doesn't improve ones ability to throw a normal basketball or using a weighted baseball bat doesn't improve ones ability to hit the ball any further.But, why do you presume that cycling with PowerCranks is less specific to cycling than cycling with regular cranks? If it is all done on the bike isn't the cycling specificity there that you seem to demand? The only difference is the PC's further specify a certain minimum way of pedaling whereas regular cranks will allow any method to make the pedals go around.

I see no "specificity" problem here. So, then one should be asking the question as to whether there might be an advantage, disadvantage, or neutral defference between requiring a specific coordination or method of pedaling or allowing anything to go. The few studies that have looked at this seem to suggest a substantial advantage to the "requiring a specific motion" approach, the PC approach.

Umm the studies I listed showing a difference between experienced cyclists and untrained and between cyclists and triathletes doing a similar training load on the bike. Would appear the more cycling you do makes you better at cycling or the less things interfering with cycling (like training for running and swimming) make you a better cyclist. You convieniently missed those as well.
I apologize, but I went back to look to see if I could find the studies you refer to, as I didn't remember seeing references to anything like that. All I could find were some references documenting the accuracy of various PM's. Could you point me again to the references/studies referred to above. I would like to read them or, at least, the abstracts if the full text is not available to me.

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.Yeah, except my FTP changes only about 10% over the course of the year and +/- 1 minute isn't good enough to measure progress, at least on the loops around here it isn't.It's way too coarse of a measurement. Especially when you figure in wind, changes in temperature (and subsequent clothing changes), other stuff. My speed on my local loop never seems to move that much over the course of the year because there's always some factor messing things up: traffic, wind, clothing. If I went by speed, I'd never have any sort of feeling toward my progress. The power numbers are unambiguous.

- Besides, I'm not trainng to ride a loop near my house, I'm training to race criteriums (at least this year I am). As a result, I need to train a variety of effort levels and intensities. How do I determine progress in training those efforts with accuracy on that same old loop near my house? How does measuring my speed on the same old loop predict my ability to race criteriums?

- There are some really great software tools for calculating training load and predicting peaks in my form based upon power meter measures. How do I do that with just a speedometer?

- I ride with other riders sometimes. So during the ride I'm drafting sometimes and sometimes I am not. How do I use the speed from group rides to judge my fitness and progress?

For those who make claims for the instrument that go beyond it simply being a measuring tool, I just wonder where those claims come from or the validity documented.Would you show those claims and show us where they are? I haven't seen anything beyond people saying that they use it as a measurement instrument. They may get really excited about the numbers they get from it and they may enjoy that they can target a particular intensity with confidence, but no one that I am aware of is ascribing magical powers to a power meter.

I'll be patiently waiting for your response.

Yeah, except my FTP changes only about 10% over the course of the year and +/- 1 minute isn't good enough to measure progress, at least on the loops around here it isn't.It's way too coarse of a measurement. Especially when you figure in wind, changes in temperature (and subsequent clothing changes), other stuff. My speed on my local loop never seems to move that much over the course of the year because there's always some factor messing things up: traffic, wind, clothing. If I went by speed, I'd never have any sort of feeling toward my progress. The power numbers are unambiguous. I guess they are unambiguous except how they are modified by stuff that happens on the course that might cause you to speed up and slow down, coast more or whatever. I think those numbers are only unambiguous if they are done routinely in a controlled environment.



- Besides, I'm not trainng to ride a loop near my house, I'm training to race criteriums (at least this year I am). As a result, I need to train a variety of effort levels and intensities. How do I determine progress in training those efforts with accuracy on that same old loop near my house? How does measuring my speed on the same old loop predict my ability to race criteriums? Well, it is not clear to me that the power number is any more accurate. I am speaking from ignorance here, having never raced in a criterium, but it seems to me that most of the ability to race criteriums comes from tactics and experience and power is a lesser concern than it would be in a TT for instance. It is not that it is unimportant, just of less importance to predict how you will race.


- There are some really great software tools for calculating training load and predicting peaks in my form based upon power meter measures. How do I do that with just a speedometer? You can't. However, the question is whether this additional information provides you any additional benefit. And, what you are saying is that the tool isn't of any real benefit without the additional tool of this computer software.



- I ride with other riders sometimes. So during the ride I'm drafting sometimes and sometimes I am not. How do I use the speed from group rides to judge my fitness and progress?How do you use your power to judge under these circumstances? Doesn't perceived effort serve you well under these circumstances?

Look, I understand the arguments and logic. I am simply asking if there is any evidence (other than anecdotal) that all this extra information results in real benefit to the competitive cyclist. And, if so, how much benefit might there be?

Mostly hilarity.:DWe're keeping Frank so busy over here he hasn't posted over at Slowtwitch for more than 24 hours. I'm guessing there are guys over there who're celebrating, too.

Would you show those claims and show us where they are? I haven't seen anything beyond people saying that they use it as a measurement instrument. They may get really excited about the numbers they get from it and they may enjoy that they can target a particular intensity with confidence, but no one that I am aware of is ascribing magical powers to a power meter.

I'll be patiently waiting for your response.Check out post 141 in this thread: "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, " "

That was not written by me so it is clear I am not the only one to believe that such opinions are commonplace. My question is directed to those who advocate something on the order of the above. There are many of them and many of them hang out here. What is the basis of such a belief? Is there anything more than anecdotal evidence and faith (belief without proof)?

Check out post 141 in this thread: "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, " "

That was not written by me so it is clear I am not the only one to believe that such opinions are commonplace. My question is directed to those who advocate something on the order of the above. There are many of them and many of them hang out here. What is the basis of such a belief? Is there anything more than anecdotal evidence and faith (belief without proof)?

There are none as blind as those who cannot see?

Can you perhaps concede that data in whatever form (time, speed, HR, power, elevation, wind, cadence etc) assists in gaining feedback from training sessions?

And what, for you, would constitute absolute proof that a power meter does indeed help with training and in fact may be the best training tool? What parameters would convince you? What facts would you require? And what would you consider a disproving that data, including power, has no effect on training plans at all and is of no benefit?

now ain't that a good quote:D

ROTFLMAO!!

Mostly hilarity.:D

More like pity. ;)

There are none as blind as those who cannot see?

Can you perhaps concede that data in whatever form (time, speed, HR, power, elevation, wind, cadence etc) assists in gaining feedback from training sessions?

And what, for you, would constitute absolute proof that a power meter does indeed help with training and in fact may be the best training tool? What parameters would convince you? What facts would you require? And what would you consider a disproving that data, including power, has no effect on training plans at all and is of no benefit?Data, in whatever form, may or may not assist in gaining improved feedback from training session. If there is too much, too little, if it is in a difficult or almost impossible to interpret form, etc. Of course, some data is necessary to gain feedback to assist in training but, you know the term, GIGO. So, the question becomes how much is enough and is more necessarily better. Many of you obviously think so. I don't necessarily disagree. I just was asking what the evidence is that would support such a conclusion? Appears there is a lot of anecdotal evidence, not much that is useful from a scientific perspective.

And, I doubt there could ever be enough evidence gained to constitute absolute proof. But, it is quite possible to design a study that might say it is more likely than not that x is better than y. In this instance, it would be nice to see at least one attempt by some academic somewhere to compare various methods with an outcome study to see if there is a statistical correlation (even if it doesn't reach the 5% level) that suggests one method is better than another. This doesn't appear to exist nor does there appear to be any attempt to gain one.