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

Originally Posted by rmur17

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

Originally Posted by Fday

Well, the first two cannot measure improvement so the only choice is C [PM] from those you listed.

Originally Posted by 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?

Originally Posted by Steve_B

If you admit this then why are we even having this thread? How can expect to get better results training with an inferior instrument?

Originally Posted by swampy1970

Efficiency is not [particularly] important... Hmmmm. Whatever you say....

Originally Posted by Fday

Because the ones you listed are not the only metrics that can be used to track progress. Many others exist.

Originally Posted by Fday

The best improvent measure I can think of regarding an athletes performance is the actual performance itself.

Measuring power would be an easy way to track progress but I am not sure it is better than any other method. That was the reason for the original question here. Is there any evidence, beyond anecdotal, that power is a better metric to follow than other metrics?

Originally Posted by Felt_Rider

Originally Posted by Fday

The best improvent measure I can think of regarding an athletes performance is the actual performance itself.

Originally Posted by Bruce Diesel

We all agree that power is directly related to the speed at which a bicycle is propelled.

Well, at the end of the day, all the other metrics are measuring power indirectly e.g. measuring speed up a climb, or time taken on a pre-defined course, lower HR at the same intensity (which would be defined in power terms anyway), etc. So, there is nothing anecdotal about the fact that measuring the performance metric directly is both better and easier than measuring other variables and deducing improvements in the metric that counts. Indirect measurement introduces error because the variables that influence the results are difficult to measure accurately if at all.

This is a fact, I cannot see how the term anecdotal is even applicable here.

An example:

After an athlete has trained in a certain way (be it with power cranks, wattage specific intervals, whatever). And tests his performance in two ways:

1. Time to complete a climb has improved by x%.
2. Power output over a certain duration has improved by y%.

Now, do you seriously question which of these to metrics is a better measurement? If you do, then with all due respect I have to have serious doubts about any statements you make regarding any aspect of cycling performance.

Originally Posted by TheDarkLord

I think it will be interesting to see how many times Frank has contradicted himself in the thread.

Originally Posted by Steve_B

But you just wrote a little while ago that only a PM can show improvement. Why would you use a metric that doesn't work to track your progress?

Originally Posted by 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.

Originally Posted by Fday

There is only one problem with measuring power alone as your performance metric. Power is not the only important variable in deterining how fast one goes on a bicycle. It is easy to gain more power if one sits up on the bike (like when climbing) but this could slow you down because of the aerodyamics. And, by the same token a rider can become faster by improving aerodynamics without increasing power at all (or, even, at a lower power).

Originally Posted by Fday

The original question was not whether or not power was a good tool. The question was whether there was any evidence, other than anecdotal, that it was a better tool than others that existed before it in helping athletes to perform better.