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.

ah you're assuming his efficiency has much (if anything) to do with his pedalling style vs. say ... his % of Type I fibers ...I would say you are the one making the assumption, regarding the basis of his efficiency.

Well, the first two cannot measure improvement so the only choice is C [PM] from those you listed. If you admit this then why are we even having this thread? How can expect to get better results training with an inferior instrument?

Okay, then let me rephrase.

When assessing the improvement that power-cranks have made to an athletes performance, which measuring tool would yeild the best results?The best improvent measure I can think of regarding an athletes performance is the actual performance itself.

Measuring power would be an easy way to track progress but I am not sure it is better than any other method. That was the reason for the original question here. Is there any evidence, beyond anecdotal, that power is a better metric to follow than other metrics?

If you admit this then why are we even having this thread? How can expect to get better results training with an inferior instrument?Because the ones you listed are not the only metrics that can be used to track progress. Many others exist.

http://www.seedsofgrowth.com/files/images/dog%20chasing%20tail.jpg

Efficiency is not [particularly] important... Hmmmm. Whatever you say....
Excellent. I was hoping you'd eventually see the light.

Because the ones you listed are not the only metrics that can be used to track progress. Many others exist.But you just wrote a little while ago that only a PM can show improvement. Why would you use a metric that doesn't work to track your progress?

The best improvent measure I can think of regarding an athletes performance is the actual performance itself.

Measuring power would be an easy way to track progress but I am not sure it is better than any other method. That was the reason for the original question here. Is there any evidence, beyond anecdotal, that power is a better metric to follow than other metrics?
We all agree that power is directly related to the speed at which a bicycle is propelled.

Well, at the end of the day, all the other metrics are measuring power indirectly e.g. measuring speed up a climb, or time taken on a pre-defined course, lower HR at the same intensity (which would be defined in power terms anyway), etc. So, there is nothing anecdotal about the fact that measuring the performance metric directly is both better and easier than measuring other variables and deducing improvements in the metric that counts. Indirect measurement introduces error because the variables that influence the results are difficult to measure accurately if at all.

This is a fact, I cannot see how the term anecdotal is even applicable here.

An example:

After an athlete has trained in a certain way (be it with power cranks, wattage specific intervals, whatever). And tests his performance in two ways:

1. Time to complete a climb has improved by x%.
2. Power output over a certain duration has improved by y%.

Now, do you seriously question which of these to metrics is a better measurement? If you do, then with all due respect I have to have serious doubts about any statements you make regarding any aspect of cycling performance.

http://www.seedsofgrowth.com/files/images/dog%20chasing%20tail.jpg:D I think it will be interesting to see how many times Frank has contradicted himself in the thread.

The best improvent measure I can think of regarding an athletes performance is the actual performance itself.

Gee, where have I heard that before? ;)

We all agree that power is directly related to the speed at which a bicycle is propelled.

Well, at the end of the day, all the other metrics are measuring power indirectly e.g. measuring speed up a climb, or time taken on a pre-defined course, lower HR at the same intensity (which would be defined in power terms anyway), etc. So, there is nothing anecdotal about the fact that measuring the performance metric directly is both better and easier than measuring other variables and deducing improvements in the metric that counts. Indirect measurement introduces error because the variables that influence the results are difficult to measure accurately if at all.

This is a fact, I cannot see how the term anecdotal is even applicable here.

An example:

After an athlete has trained in a certain way (be it with power cranks, wattage specific intervals, whatever). And tests his performance in two ways:

1. Time to complete a climb has improved by x%.
2. Power output over a certain duration has improved by y%.

Now, do you seriously question which of these to metrics is a better measurement? If you do, then with all due respect I have to have serious doubts about any statements you make regarding any aspect of cycling performance.There is only one problem with measuring power alone as your performance metric. Power is not the only important variable in deterining how fast one goes on a bicycle. It is easy to gain more power if one sits up on the bike (like when climbing) but this could slow you down because of the aerodyamics. And, by the same token a rider can become faster by improving aerodynamics without increasing power at all (or, even, at a lower power).

So, power is not necessarily perfect in predicting performance. It is important, but not the only thing the serious racer needs to work on.

The original question was not whether or not power was a good tool. The question was whether there was any evidence, other than anecdotal, that it was a better tool than others that existed before it in helping athletes to perform better.

:D I think it will be interesting to see how many times Frank has contradicted himself in the thread.
But you just wrote a little while ago that only a PM can show improvement. Why would you use a metric that doesn't work to track your progress? Steve noticed as well :D

How many contradicting times?
It may go up as quickly as my post count.

So how does the explain how someone like Olano, who reportedly has a very low VO2max in comparison with his peers but apparently has a very efficient pedaling style, could time trial better than pretty much better than anyone.

Lucia, A., J. Hoyos, M. Perez, A. Santalla, and J.L. Chicharro. Inverse relationship between VO2max and economy/efficiency in world-class cyclists. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 34: 2079-2084, 2002.

1. I was speaking of small, intraindividual differences in efficiency due to differences in how you choose (or are forced) to pedal, vs. interindividual differences in efficiency which don't correlate with how you pedal.

2. The study you cite provides no evidence that Olano pedaled any differently than other subjects who were much less efficient.

There is only one problem with measuring power alone as your performance metric. Power is not the only important variable in deterining how fast one goes on a bicycle. It is easy to gain more power if one sits up on the bike (like when climbing) but this could slow you down because of the aerodyamics. And, by the same token a rider can become faster by improving aerodynamics without increasing power at all (or, even, at a lower power). AHHHHH! :mad: Frank, you started this thread about power, not speed. We all know that speed is dependant upon many things, not just power. Stop moving the goalposts, like seem to want to do.

The original question was not whether or not power was a good tool. The question was whether there was any evidence, other than anecdotal, that it was a better tool than others that existed before it in helping athletes to perform better.So I repeat my question of just a little while ago. You said that only a power meter can show a rider's improvement. So why would you train and measure your improvement with an instrument or method that does not work?

The original question was not whether or not power was a good tool. The question was whether there was any evidence, other than anecdotal, that it was a better tool than others that existed before it in helping athletes to perform better.
To which tools are you referring?

it's another glorious morning here in Sydney. track conditions are clear and fast for some fabulously frenetic finger action at the keyboards around the world. Once again the protagonists have been released from the gates and they're charging....:D

Steve noticed as well :D

How many contradicting times?
It may go up as quickly as my post count.This is how he wiggles out of it: He'll wait until someone else posts something to which he can reply to and either change the subject or blow it off completely. Except I'm not letting this go....;)

How did people know they were better before PM's were available?

They didn't know, they guessed.

it's another glorious morning here in Sydney.Sounds good. I'm on my way to the airport now...:rolleyes:

AHHHHH! :mad: Frank, you started this thread about power, not speed. We all know that speed is dependant upon many things, not just power. Stop moving the goalposts, like seem to want to do.

So I repeat my question of just a little while ago. You said that only a power meter can show a rider's improvement. So why would you train and measure your improvement with an instrument or method that does not work?Ugh, I son't know of a sinngle cyling race that gives the trophy to the rider who can generate the most power. Usually it goes to the fastest. Going fast involves a lot of skills. Power is just one metric one can work on to achieve that fastest goal.

Why would you presume that looking at that single metric would be the best measure of how one will perform overall? Obviously, you believe so, which gets me back to the original question. Is there any evidence to support your proposition that measuring this one metric is superior to other methods of measuring achievement when preparing for a bike race?