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

Fday

No, if you read the original question I mentioned that when I posted the question somewhere else all there seemed to be was anecdotal evidence given in return. Why else would I have posted the question here if I wasn't looking to see if there might be some kind of "better" evidence for the tool? Seems there isn't.

swampy1970

If he would have sold Power Cranks back in the early 90's he probably would have put sometime along the lines of "Person X rode 3 minutes faster over 25 miles after Power Crank use....". Power is 'the in thing' so it would be rather silly from an advertising point of view to put anything but power gains, no? If you put in a time variable then you'd get people complaining that "oh... how many more watts is that... why couldn't he have just put watts..."

Is he really bad mouthing training with power? I don't think so... he even sells PowerCranks equiped with SRM power monitoring installed. If you'd read the question he originally posed he was more "questioning" why training with power is better than training with other methods of feedback.

I could put the case forward that I could do 80% of my training without a heart rate monitor and be in the correct ballpark in terms of intensity. I find that it's a useful tool to stop me from going too hard - rather than a tool to get me to ride harder. It was the same training with power on the trainer too. I've never used a power monitoring tool out of the road but I see that PowerTap dealers are offering a 1 week "test drive" of the 2.4 SL unit with wheel for a small fee - at some point this year I'll give that a go but given what my "goals" are for the year I don't really need one.

Conversely, I could also put the case forward that I don't need Power Cranks. I could force myself to try and pedal more effectively but that would require thinking about my technique 100% of the time. I can't do that when it's really hot outside and I'm climbing really steep hills. The fact that I'm still suffering with riding with these cranks and the fact that I'm no longer troubled by nagging lower back pain and ITB problems (that I suffered from for the last couple of years after getting back on the bike - and back in the 80's and 90's when I raced) proves to me that they're working out well for me. Forget the fact that I'm climbing way better than this time last year (at the same weight) but I feel better both on and off the bike. Ok, when I hit the 3 hour mark my hip flexors go into manditory suicide mode but eventually that'll pan out to 4, 5 or 6 hours.... eventually.

As for the "Swampy must have the near death experience" quote - some of you need to embrace Stuey O'Grady's mantra and wear the black wristbands that he had made for Team CSC that read "Harden the f*** up". * - inserted to keep the "content filter' at work happy. I found that if I didn't get the harder efforts in during training then my results didn't improve as fast or even improve at all. Was it due to the actual training effect or was it a mental thing and that riding a 10 or 25 as hard as I needed too, especially in the first quarter of the year, was too much of a shock to the system? Too be honest, I don't know. I didn't really like doing it but it got results. If I could find something that was less stressful and got the same results I'd use it in a heartbeat. But would I measure that heartbeat on a Polar HRM or a PowerTap?

doctorSpoc

No, because PC DO purport to actually improve your cycling performance and PM only purport to measure performance and improvement in performance and they do exactly as advertised and do it very accurately. they are a testing/feedback tool... an argument against using power meter is an argument wholesale against testing at all... of all the testing methods it's the best since it measures performance directly, and most accurately.

i think you could argue about relative value of power meters over other methods since they are expensive or the efficacy of testing at all (i think this is pretty well accepted as necessary) but you can't argue against the efficacy of power meters at measuring intensity, performance... power.. they measure power very well and this is what they purport to do and do, do.

PMs don't prescribe workouts or drills that would improve performance, they just report whether the intensity of the drill is what you think they should be and if the drills are effective and if performance is improving... they just let you know if what you are doing is working... i'm not saying that PC do or don't improve performance... but it would be very easy to check if they do especially in TT events.... if one wants to check the efficacy of PC they would use a power meter to check and see if using the PC are improving performance over time.

PC purport to force pedaling drills that directly improve performance... but there is no study that i know of actually demonstrate this objectively... no objective evidence that they do what they purport to do

PM have been tested and very accurately report power (what they purport to do)... is there any objective evidence that PC do what they purport to do i.e. improve cycling performance directly?

Fday

Is there "objective evidence" that PC's do what they purport to do, i.e., improve cycling performance directly? Yes! Independent University studies no less. Not many (yet). Here is a link to our page where we list available studies and other "relevant" studies.

Steve_B

Frank, that is why I questioned what you wrote in post 119. In that post, you were asking for benefit "from the masses".That, by it's nature, is asking for anecdotal evidence. So you are contradicting your original intent, hence, that is why I said that you are moving the goalposts.

bbrauer

Yes, I understand that; and that was essentially my argument in my other post below. 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, " just as we can witness breathless claims that "Powercranks improved my performance a gazillion percent." One is a stimulus/feedback tool, the other is a testing/feedback tool. Ultimately, a distinction without a difference.


Yeah, and I guess the larger point Mr Powercrank was making was whether having such a precise measure of absolute performance in terms of wattage was absolutely essential. If I perform a set of 8x2 minute intervals at my best intensity, it really doesn't matter whether my power meter provides accurate feedback. In fact, I hide my computer under my towel when I perform them so I'm not tempted to look.

I would hesitate to claim that a power meter measures "intensity." It simply measures wattage - the power you're producing. It doesn't gauge your motivation or individual physiology. Intensity is a subjective measure of effort.


I guess the larger question is whether you consider pedaling circles is an effective skill to develop to improve your cycling "efficiency" (I'm steering clear over the argument over the definition of efficiency). If you think a smooth pedal stroke is helpful, then the PCs absolutely work as a feedback tool to "report...if the drills are effective and performance is improving." If you can pedal PCs without screwing up, then you're doing what they're forcing you to do. If you don't, they let you know immediately.

__________________
www.liquidfitness.com

wiredued

Couldn't I just lift my knees to unweight the pedals and save my money for a PT?

__________________
Romans 5:10 For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life. http://www.earnharts.com/html/reala...ecific.asp?id=3

Steve_B

Everything else can be misleading for the reasons I mentioned here. They can be way off, to the point of looking like you are getting worse or not improving at all, not better or vice-versa. So yes, the precision is important to have in many circumstances.

Displayed precision to 0.001 watt would probably be questionable due to the errors involved in torque measurement. No one is suggesting that this is necessary. It is the precision over HRM or RPE or speedometer that is superior and, as I stated before, gives a clear, unambiguous indicator of success or failure.

acoggan

Didn't you provide financial support for at least one of those studies? And aren't there some studies that have reported contradictory results?

acoggan

I think you're right...which is why it is oh-so-critical to distinguish between training by power and training (and racing) with a powermeter. Unless/until you do that, you'll never "get it" (as Frank apparently hasn't).

acoggan

Most definitely, but not for the reasons you think.

doctorSpoc

if you buy into the belief that it's important to gauge your efforts and/or track improvement, test to know if your training is effective or not and to make adjustments etc.. then yes, a power meter is a god send... but it isn't responsible for the improvement in and of itself.. your training regime is.. PC are in effect a training regime in hardware form and is claimed to be responsible for the improvement in and of itself.. the two things are very different and not comparable... power cranks should be compared to other training regimes/drills.. in other words this is not a question of power vs power cranks it's a question of testing vs PC... power IS the best most suitable, accurate method of testing... the only question i can see is if you find value in the PM or not based on their price.



but how do you know if you are improving? next month you could be doing 50 W more or 50W less and not know it, but the interval would feel just as hard or even harder. how do you know if your training regime is effective or if it should be altered in some way? RPE is not effective at all to test improvement... it's not even a question of accuracy, it's a question of suitability for the task or tasks at all.



semantic aside... "subjective measure of effort" is irrelevant... adaptations are based on physiological stimulus... how hard it feels is irrelevant.. if i do 20 min at 250 W and i was on a good day with lots of rest and it felt easy... i still reap the benefits of doing 250W for 20mins.. if i'm tired and 20min at 200W was a death march... just because it felt harder is irrelevant.. i still only reap the benefits of doing 200W for 20mins... how hard it felt is irrelevant... this is why HR and RPE are unsuitable for the task at hand... is it important to know that last month i was able to do better than i was doing today? is it important to know in a 20min workout that if i go over power x i won't be able to complete my interval but if i notch down 5-10W which is imperceptible at the beginning of a 20min effort i will be able to complete it? again if you have an HR monitor or use RPE you've already bought into gauging performance is important... and if you've gone there, then power is the best most suitable in every instance and most accurate method of tracking it...



again whether one thinks pedaling in circles is beneficial or not is irrelevant, the only thing that matters is if you can actually perform better after using PCs or not... or if riding with PC beneficial but you can learn without them, but it's harder and you have to think more than with PC, could still find value in the ease of use... in a similar manner to how i believe the PMs just make your life easier when tracking performance..

fergie

Total agreement with you on that point.

Did I say that? I said they were able to learn more about the demands of MTB using a SRM. You don't need a SRM or Powertap to perform intervals but if going for a specific effect the powermeter can show if you got it right.

So for my 3000m pursuit I will know if my ave power and cadence were where I was aiming. Coming off a cold I was doing intervals yesterday and felt strong (PE) and HR was in the zone. Power was down 35watts over normal. If I relied on HR or PE or psychic powers I might not have found out how far behind the eight ball I am at present.

I wasn't part of the Sarah Ulmer process. But it is safe to say that a huge amount of experimentation was performed leading into 2004. I assume gearing was part of this. Yes perhaps if she had gone bigger she would have been World Champion sooner.

But it is clear that wattage was the primary metric used to measure training and any experimentation. From this the coaching team could predict she was on target for another World Record in Athens. Thanks to some pretty unique weather conditions and the venue she obliterated the record.

Sure she and her coaching team would have been nowhere near as precise with their calculations without SRM.

Well not all mistakes have bad consequences I guess.

I am not a Triathlete. Perhaps you need to find out if riders are pacing themselves using the SRM or Powertap.

In road races I suggest my riders use their SRM or Powertap to ensure they are conserving maximum energy till they make their move. Whether this is go from the gun, on the final climb or the last 150m they can make a game of it to ensure they are tucked away in the bunch.

Yes, you make it sound as if the SRM or Powertap should be turning the pedals for you. All they do is measure and provide feedback. Some prefer instant feedback. As I have to race my 3000m by feel (not allowed to ride with a computer visible) I do my intervals by feel and use the power data later to confirm if I am on track.

Nearly everyone I coach uses a SRM, Powertap or Polar (with Power) and whether their goals are World domination or to be super fit for a ride in the Pyrennees at Tour time they benefit from using a power meter. Sure they haven't got a clue when they start out as it's still all a bit new for most people. But once they learn the lingo and understand the currency of wattage they make big progress.

Ummm, they are. New World Records were set at World Champs this year. As suggested Ulmers WR was pretty unique and came from a very focused 9 month period leading into Athens coming off 10 years of world level participation.

Other records on track remain because they were also set in unique circumstances. The flying 200m is best attempted on Moscow with it's longer 333.33 distance and higher than normal bankings and the 4000m record was set in a riding position that is now banned. Funny they took the 1hour record off Boardman but not that one but stood in the way of Obree throughout his career.

Cool thing is that we are building up a database of power files from NZ riders at different tracks around the World so we know their individual characteristics. Manchester is heated well and has long straights so pursuiters can power the bends while ADT is air conditioned and has tight bends so pursuit times are slower and riders aim for slower times and use smaller gears.

Depends on how well you want to go. Even Eddy Merckx had a huge team of advisers guiding and monitoring his efforts. Lance had a large group behind him. Sure you can go it alone. I wish you luck.

With SRM or Powertap and TrainingPeaks I know I can provide more specific programmes, give better feedback and with the "performance manager" am developing psychic powers that can provide startlingly accurate predictions of what a rider is capable of doing in the future.

__________________
Hamish Ferguson: Cycling Coach
http://hamishferguson.blogspot.com/

Fday

I was asking about benefit for the masses, not from the masses. Perhaps I mistyped. Anyhow, i seems to me that, unless the benefit is obvious (it is faster to fly to NY from LA than it is to drive) that usually a statistical analysis is required to demonstrate real benefit. So, the intent of the original question was to find out what the evidence really is for or against the argument that using a PM, however one might optimally use it, results in better improvement or performance, on average, than if one were to use a more "traditional" method of assessing effort.