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

Originally Posted by rmur17

for my own case, from around '94 onwards my only data, admittedly rough, were from local TT's on my road bike with clip-ons, semi-aero wheels etc. We ran about 10 events per yr on the same course -- enough to get a couple of good light wind days in there.

In '96 I set a PB of 30:22 ... only incrementally better than the previous yrs --- typically around the 30:30-30:40 mark would be my best for the year. In 2002 in August and coming back to racing form, with the same gear, I did 30:50. 2-3 months later I figure I could have done a bit better so let's say 30:30 was my baseline over those seven years.

The main point is that I personally, and parenthetically those around here, didn't measurably improve over that period of time. I don't know what FTP I was at over those years but (roughly!) judging from best TT performances and with close to constant equipment, I have to say somewhere around the 315-330W mark.

I haven't been able to run a solid TT on that course since 2006 but I know in good conditions and with decent aero gear that I can target 26 flat or high 25's right now. that's a simple projection of current power vs. ~350W in 2006.

That's roughly 20% faster since my pre-PM days and, as we all know, on a typical TT course that takes a much better than 20% increase in power-to-drag ratio (W/CdA) to achieve.

Anyhow, the PM is just a good modern tool. it's up to the user or coach to make the best of it.

Originally Posted by Fday

You do understand don't you that the same people who are using data just like yours to tout how wonderful the PM is as a training tool completely discount similar reports from people who have trained on PC's as "it probably would have happened anyhow, where is the proof it was due to the PC's?" That is the problem with anecdotal evidence. It is suggestive of certain outcomes but hardly compelling to anyone who knows anything about scientific proof.

I don't doubt it is an effective tool, especially in the right hands. Just wondering if the "how effective" question can be answered, especially as regards in comparison to other methods to achieve the same end. Could you have achieved similar (or, possibly, even better) results using a HR monitor and portable lactate analyzer? Who knows?

Originally Posted by Fday

That is the problem with anecdotal evidence. It is suggestive of certain outcomes but hardly compelling to anyone who knows anything about scientific proof.

Originally Posted by fergie

Great work Frank, now we have stumped up with more than enough facts the problem has changed to "too much data".

Originally Posted by acoggan

Yet your website is chock full of similar (well, actually not-all-that-similar, in that they practically always lack objective data) testimonials, all intended to convince people to buy your cranks - go figure!

Originally Posted by Fday

If you think PM "testimonial evidence" is "better" because they all have "objective" power data, all I can say is LOL. :-)

Originally Posted by Steve_B

The power meter doesn't lie.

Originally Posted by fergie

People manipulate files. Who would sink that low?

Originally Posted by Fday

Unless, of course, it hasn't been calibrated, zeroed, has a bad straing gauge, the file has been manipulated, it is too hot, it is too cold, and on and on. :-)

Originally Posted by Steve_B

Which can and does happen with research studies too. I've seen it (poor calibration) in research stuff in my own professional field. So being a reviewed study does not make it immune from scrutiny. It's not like peer reviewers went and checked the SRM calibration for the researchers.

Yup, Frank will cast doubt on that but if the study is about PC's...WELL THEN...it must be totally on the up and up, right? No chance the cal was off on the studies Robert mentioned, huh? (I guess it doesn't matter since they didn't show an increase in power output with PCs anyway.)

Originally Posted by rmur17

How in the world would I do that using an HRM or lactate analyzer? Before you say compare HR and/or lactate response using a fixed trainer, wheel pressure, coast-down and speed etc --- those only a poor estimate of ... power delivered to the rear wheel.

Originally Posted by rmur17

How in the world would I do that using an HRM or lactate analyzer? Before you say compare HR and/or lactate response using a fixed trainer, wheel pressure, coast-down and speed etc --- those only a poor estimate of ... power delivered to the rear wheel.