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

swampy1970

You may notice that if you hold your head sideways and look curiously onward like the "HMV" dog, you'll note that the first test implies no rpm restriction whereas the second one the riders are forced to ride at 75rpm.

That said, it doesn't say what rpm was using in the first test, nor does it say in the test that Kelme riders participated in.... Note, that from anecdotal information on the web, those who seem to write of the cranks "near magical abilities" are using them in time trials - very few seem to be claiming greatness while using them on the hills. Maybe the cranks, for whatever reason, work better at a higher rpm.... I couldn't tell ya.

Now, in this situation, do you say that one of the tests weren't properly thought out and conducted, one set of riders respond differently to different equipment and that the equipment may/may not provide some gains or that the authors are 1-1 on testing this so they might as well go for the tie breaker.

What I can tell ya is that their q-rings feel choppy above 95rpm. They also 'seem' to give about a 45 second advantage on a climb that takes ~40minutes based upon a mere 4 rides (2 with a round 30t and 2 with a 30t q-ring, same hill, same day and I recall the round rings were first) when ridden at an approximately the same heart rate. Scientific, not exactly but slightly better than "wow, I feel at least 2 mph better!!"

swampy1970

Maybe your name in Jacques Lance-Mercnaultdurain and your FTP is 495watts.

Bruce Diesel

I do apologise if this argument has been used already been used in the previous 24 pages of this thread, I haven't read all of them, but it is a question for Frank.


Frank, which measuring tool would you say is the best tool to measure improvements made in riders using power cranks?

A. RPE
B. HR
C. Power Meter

Why?

RChung

None of those. I'd say that efficiency is not a particularly important determinant of overall cycling performance. You do understand that Rotor Q-rings aren't the same thing as their RS4X cranks? These studies are about the cranks, not the rings.

Steve_B

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bruce Diesel I do apologise if this argument has been used already been used in the previous 24 pages of this thread, I haven't read all of them…

Let me guess, you had something better to do with your time?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bruce Diesel Frank, which measuring tool would you say is the best tool to measure improvements made in riders using power cranks? A. RPE B. HR C. Power Meter Why?

He's a bit funny about this. For those of you too bored by this thread to not keep score at home:

He admits that power is the ultimate measure of effort and power is what propels you down the road/trail/track. However, he thinks it might not be the most necessary measure of training intensity or the most practical, convenient and usable training feedback device. (We got him to stop saying that a power meter implies a certain method or manner of training.) He thinks doing a loop around your neighborhood every few weeks is a good enough measure of how you are progressing. Finally, he wants a study to compare training feedback tools, as you suggest: RPE, HRM, PM, blood lactate, blah, blah, blah.

Back to my real job and enough of this sports commentating gig...

acoggan

Or more precisely (and really more correctly), small intraindividual variations in efficiency resulting from differences in the way one is forced to pedal don't seem to be a particularly important determinant of overall cycling performance.

Fday

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

swampy1970

Efficiency is not important... Hmmmm. Whatever you say....

The q-rings were devloped/designed to replicate the effects of the RS cranks during the "pushing" phase - but it should be noted that given a 34T chainring the RS cranks have an effective max and min of 38.8 and 29.6T whereas the q-rings of the "same" size have an effective max and min of 35.9 and 32.6. Where the two products significantly differ is between 180 and 360 degrees... but given the mantra on here about "it's all about the push" then that part shouldn't matter right?

Felt_Rider

Zactly!!!!

Now with PM's people can determine if they are progressing.

__________________
My Blog

Fday

Well, the first two cannot measure improvement so the only choice is C from those you listed. But, there are many other ways of measuring improvement. How on earth do you think athletes measured improvement 10-20 years ago when PM's were not readily available?

swampy1970

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.

Fday

I would guess that the key word in your answer is seem. Differences in efficiency don't seem to be particularly important because it was essentially impossible to study whether it is or not if one cannot easily and reliably change the efficiency and see the result. The only way to know would be to take two groups and change the efficiency of one and not the other as see if it makes a difference. Now, with PowerCranks and the Luttrell study results it would appear that such a study is possible. We will have to wait for the results. :-)

Bruce Diesel

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?

rmur17

ah you're assuming his efficiency has much (if anything) to do with his pedalling style vs. say ... his % of Type I fibers ...

__________________
rmur