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

Originally Posted by fergie

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.

Originally Posted by Fday

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.

Originally Posted by Fday

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.

Originally Posted by Steve_B

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.

Originally Posted by Alex Simmons

Mostly hilarity.

Originally Posted by Steve_B

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.

Originally Posted by Fday

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)?

Originally Posted by Alex Simmons

now ain't that a good quote

Originally Posted by Alex Simmons

Mostly hilarity.

Originally Posted by Tapeworm

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?

Originally Posted by Fday

I guess I missed all the "hard data". Hard data I guess is subject to interpretation.

Originally Posted by rmur17

Better is better.

Originally Posted by rmur17

okay ... here's my own very ugly Power-Duration curve data on what I call the short-end of the curve: 3-min to 60-min.

History: very boring but I started training and raced in '88 (age 25) winning the Atlantic Prov. RR champs that year - equal to a single state RR in the U.S I'd say. No TT held so I can't claim that! Next got sick and lost a bunch of weight - started lifting weights and over-compensated. No riding of any note until '94. from that point on I slowly built up my conditioning again and lost weight to the ~190lb mark (from ~250). Each year I logged from 400-650 hrs on the bike - some years quite structured and I raced local TTs and road races, others work was too busy and I did not race at all, but every single year I logged at least 400hrs on the bike.

In 2002, work slacked off and I really buckled down to training again. Logged close to 700hrs that year (~21,500km) and raced local TT's and tri relays to good effect. That fall my reg. t/p did two long distance triathlon's and did quite well. I felt like I was in my best shape ever (age 39).

I'd been following the old Wattage list for some time then and figured that given the long winters here a CT would be a great benefit. Got a decent deal on one and in Nov. 2002 did a series of benchmark tests which established what I termed my 'baseline' Power-Duration curve. At that time, I had no idea whether I could progress 5W from that level, 10W from that level or even hold that level given what I'd read about the effects on aging.

On the attached graph the Nov.2002 levels are shown in light blue on the lower portion of the graph. Indoor 30MP ~ outdoor FTP for me so at that time FTP was around 325W.

The dark blue and yellow lines above represent current AP and NP power-duration bests (set about three weeks ago) and the Reds are simply stretch targets that I may never, ever reach .. but I said the same thing 5-6 years ago!

By following the guidelines of a certain well-known ex. Phys. known to post here , and being willing and foolish enough to experiment and push myself over the edge from time to time, and by reading and learning what I could, I ended up gaining ~100W across the board over that time.

On an FTP basis, around 420W vs. 325W (+30%) starting off from what i believe most would call a "well-trained" state.

Yeah, yeah I know that's not 40% over six months on PC's but it is what it is.

Would I give up training with power? No way ... Would a mariner give up GPS and go back to the sextant? Same concept really. A superior tool is a superior tool. If you can't figure out how to make good use of it, find someone who can and hire them (or buy a training program ).

This all being said, I fully realize this is not scientific evidence. But how to obtain that?

Who would be stupid enough to go back to the sextant now? Or sandglass? Or sundial? Or HRM? But they all sort of worked, didn't they?

Better is better.

Originally Posted by Fday

Congratulations.

I guess I don't equate hard numbers with hard data that go to the question I originally asked. Yours represents an anecdotal report but unless one has data from "matched" controls one doesn't know what to make of it as to whether it is a better way of training.

Your hard numbers demonstrate that this method to be an effective training method. What it doesn't demonstrate is that it is better than other training methods. But, that was the question I originally asked. Is there data to support the contention of some that this method of training is superior to others?

Congratulations on your improvement. That represents a lot of hard work.