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

Fday

While pedaling in circles issue may be a larger issue, it is not necessarily rightfully debated in this thread. It is possible that both PM's and PC's work wonderfully but that the combination of the two is the most powerful tool. Some of my customers think that. The purpose of the original question though was simply to find out what the best evidence is for the PM as a training tool (performance enhancement) tool.

Fday

Yes. Unfortunately for that approach, however, the evidence suggests that is a very difficult skill to learn without PC's. Ask almost any user.

Fday

Sure people are suggesting that measurement to 0.001 watt might be necessary when they suggest that more precision is always better.

The question is how much precision is necessary and when does "more precision" become redundant and totally unnecessary.

Fday

If you consider providing product to a researcher so he can study the product "financial support" then the answer is, yes.

If you would like to discuss these studies, their strengths, weaknesses, and findings, and whether the findings are contradictory I will be happy to do so. However, I would suggest you start another thread for this purpose.

The purpose of this thread is to see what the evidence is for or against power meters.

Fday

This thread isn't about what I "get" or "don't get". It is supposed to be to find out what evidence exists (other than anecdotal evidence, hopefully) to support using a power meter, however it might be best employed.

acoggan

That is financial support - too bad the investigators violated the ethics of their profession for failing to reveal this fact.



You can never keep your comments on-topic, so why should I have to?

Fday

I don't think I would even care to hazard a guess as to why you might think such precision beneficial.

acoggan

If you understood the difference between training by power and training (and racing) with a powermeter, you wouldn't have to guess.

acoggan

Actually, it is - that is, if you "got it" you never would have posed the question in the first place.

Fday

Ah yes, belittle others in any way you can, as if there was some nefarious intent to that ommission. Anyhow, the data speaks for itself and whether the author failed to reveal the "financial relationship" when published, it has been revealed by me. There is nothing to hide. You may interpret the data now knowing full well that "financial relationship" existed. LOL.

It is quite sad that someone of such supposed academic stature repeatedly reveals himself to be quite petty.

Fday

Sure I would. I "get it" about my own product yet I understand the need for science to back up my "understanding"- what I "get". Hence, I support getting as many studies done as possible. Some have been completed, more are on the way.

Apparently you missed out on that lesson. It is always nice to have a little science behind your beliefs. So there is "getting it" and "getting" the science to back up what you are "getting". Seems you forgot the later.

TheDarkLord

I don't know if you have ever published in peer reviewed journals. But the tradition is to acknowledge the source of funding for the study at the end of the publication. Studies funded by the company itself do have a conflict of interest, and hence some will be more skeptical believing the results, especially if there is a chance of falsified data. Also, are the results from the studies peer reviewed or not?

Just a few comments from someone who doesn't train or own PMs or PCs...

Steve_B

I'm not suggesting 0.0001 is necessary. Andy is saying it would be nice to have. I hope that you can distinguish the difference.
and I answered your question about the necessity of precision here, which leads you to here. Andy answered the question about necessity. So you can stop asking the same question incessantly as if we're not answering you.

When I wanted to learn about power meters, I read about them, I bought one 5 years ago, learned a lot from that and I've continued to learn more. So I was patient, asked a lot of questions and learned. I didn't come into a forum like a bull in a china shop just to create a disturbance as you have.

swampy1970

It depends on the target audience to some extent. If you take most triatheletes who can't pedal worth a damn then you'll see improvements.

I thought I knew how to pedal effectively but I certainly have benefited from using PC's the past few months. I know some overweight guy who's knocked off a few short 21's for 10 mile TTs to 1 56's for 50 mile TTs in the past isn't exactly the sort of guy that you want feedback from (I wouldn't - I want feedback from the guys knocking out sub 18 minute 10's and sub 1hr 40 for the 50) but I have to say these are one of the few items of mine that will not be seeing eBay, nor where they returned at the 3 month stage for the complete money back guarentee. If I chart progress and over the course of 12 months (3 tests) I see gains that are incremental, incremental and something akin to exponential and the only thing that's changed is "item X" then I really don't care what y'all say. LOL

Leiphemier apparently used them a while back and he got quicker and has become quite the time trial monster - but that could also be from other things too... who knows.

I can honestly say that if there hadn't been a 3 month grace period I wouldn't have bought them and if I didn't have the stubboness of a mule, then I probably would have packed them back into the box after 2 weeks for a refund.

I mostly like to play the ball too.... unless it starts getting dirty.