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

acoggan

Do us all a favor, Frank, and don't post again on this topic until you understand the difference between training by power and training with a powermeter.

Felt_Rider

For me there is no struggle to align my thoughts of training with a powermeter because I do have 25 years in competitive weightlifting and as I see the importance of knowing how much weight is on the bar I can see the same analogy for PM data.

Competitive weight training is very much like those who are training with a PM in the sense of training in the range of 60, 70, 80, 90% of your maximum. Those two, even those they are completely different competitive events, have that similiarity as far as I can tell. I admit that I am a newbie in the cycling world and don't pretend to be anything else. Knowing how much, maybe not down to 10ths or 100ths of a fraction of weight, but knowing how much a plate weighs is important in weightlifting. I will let those who are powerbased experts talk about training at 80% of whatever.

On your comment about PC's being useful, I didn't ask that question. I asked if Merkx could be so successful without either than why should a guy like me that is training without either bother to get PC's if Merkx was considered to have superior training.

I don't really have a dog in this fight, but I am confused about the Merkx comment if he was able to be successful without either convention.

__________________
My Blog

fergie

Yes, because the majority of research uses wattage as the measure of intensity. How many of the studies on powercranks use wattage as a measure for any effect.

Had a top female cyclist come to me and we did some work to correct her core muscle activation. As soon as she did this her power went up 30-45 watts. I loaned her my Powertap wheel and we did some efforts on an erg that measures power so she could see the effect and helped reinforce the improvements.

Can you suggest a better way to show her the benefits of a technique improvement?

The other mistake you are making is calling using SRM a method of training. It isn't. It's a measure of training. Currently the best measure and most convenient. Just not the cheapest. But as Bontrager say "strong, light, cheap, pick two".

Hamish Ferguson
Cycling Coach

doctorSpoc

again FDay... power meter don't define a method of training... they are a tool to measure intensity of training... that's it! what they offer is the most accurate measure of intensity/power... because they actually.... MEASURE POWER... directly

no one needs a study to determine this... it's obvious... power meters are the most accurate measure of training intensity/power..

e.g. i just did a sprint workout yesterday.. this probably worst case scenario... 5x 10-15 sec sprints... 2 uphill from standing and 3x flying start down a slight incline..

RPE... well, they all kinda felt hard... RPE is pretty useless.. although with MANY years of practice you may be able to get good at determining intensity with RPE

speed/stopwatch not bad if you keep everything constant but... that's pretty hard a lot of the time... the speed of the downhill ones where WAY faster than the uphill ones + tailwind in one direction and cross wind in the other...

HR... didn't really budge over those 10-15 sec... so, pretty much useless... well, completely useless actually

the other "training methods" you mention are not even training methods either... they are method of measuring intensity of training as well and they ARE certainly demonstrably inferior methods of measuring intensity... this is obvious to anyone who has used a power meter... HR can be all over the map on given days or not even budge or change enough to determine what power you are riding at/intensity... pretty much useless for most interval training. Speed inside can actually be VERY accurate at determining power, but outside is very inaccurate at predicting power/intensity (hills, wind etc)... RPE is not as accurate as a power meter at determining power but one can actually get some degree of accuracy after many, many years (hard because of changes in motivation and freshness day to day... wind, false flats, road condition etc, etc.).

again... your question doesn't make sense... using power to train is not a training methodolgy

fergie

I like to be as precise as possible. My clients probably prefer that as well.

As for feel, in 2004 NZ team mechanics put a smaller sprocket on Sarah Ulmer's bike by mistake for a training session and she didn't notice any difference apart from producing more wattage and going faster. Analysis of the SRM data made it an easy choice to go from breaking the WR on 96" gear to smashing it in Athens using 102"!

Hamish Ferguson
Cycling Coach

Fday

Use whatever term you wish. Is there any evidence to suggest that either training by power or training with a power meter is more successful over traditional techniques?

Fday

Well, Merckx was successful without PC's because PC's were not available to any of the competitors then. To use his success despite his non-use of PowerCranks says nothing about the product.

Powercranks are available to everyone now. So, you and everyone have to be concerned with what the competition is doing. We are pretty happy with the quality of the athletes currently using the PC's (at least those we know about - some are using them we are sure that we do not know about) to enhance their abilities. These users include current and past Olympic, World and National champions in a wide variety of cycling and running disciplines. Just because some of the people here have never seen any of these athletes on them says little about the product also.

fergie

Take a look at the number of riders in the Pro peloton using SRM or Powertap. These weight obsessed freaks wouldn't lug the extra weight around unless the information gained wasn't valuable.

Attend any Track World Cup and all the top teams will have a SRM tucked under the seat. Bike NZ just purchased 24 units and have requested that all roadies heading to the European Training Centre have SRM.

Another mistake is to assume that training has changed thanks to Power Meters. It hasn't. Specificity is still king. The power meter does allow us to better assess if we are training as we intend to race. Power meter analysis software like TrainingPeaks allows us to determine if we are doing too much or too little.

Hamish Ferguson
Cycling Coach

Fday

I understand the desire to be precise. However, where does additional precision stop providing additional benefit?

Regarding the Ulmer anecdote. Seems to me that the same knowledge could have been gained without a PM by simply experimenting with different gear sizes. I don't understand why this isn't done all the time for these athletes. Why do people always presume they know what is best without experimenting some to see if they are right. Why did it have to occur because of a mistake made by the mechanic?

Fday

Do you know how many members of the pro peloton use PC's as part of their training program?

Do you know how many former and current Olympic, World, and National cycling champions have or do train with PC's?

Do you know which members of your own national track team have used PC's? If you say none of them you will be wrong.

The use of PC's does not prohibit the use of a PM also. The Belgian track coach thinks the combination of the PC's with the SRM to be particularly powerful. You can see his video interview regarding his experience with them on our web site.

Back to the original question: I don't deny that this PM bias exists. I am simply asking if there is any evidence that outcome is substantially improved because of PM use? The woman winner of the Ironman Worlds Championship last year, Chrissy Wellington, came out of the blue and she does not train with a PM, does not race with a PM, does not even race with an aero helmet (apparently thinks cooling more important than aerodynamics in this hot venue) yet she won the race with both the fastest bike split and the fastest run split. If there is any benefit, it would appear to be small.

asgelle

Training without a power meter, sick to the point of missing training at least once a year. After 2nd year training with a power meter, never missed training due to illness. Note standard is "evidence to suggest."

Fday

Of course, as I suspect you know, that is anecdotal evidence. People make decisions based upon anecdotal evidence all the time. Sometimes we have no choice. It is just not particularly persuasive from a scientific perspective, something I was hoping for.

asgelle

Then you should not have asked for "evidence to suggest."

Steve_B

Frank - this is anecdotal. You're asking us for a research study - not anecdotal evidence - to prove that PMs are better then you haul this out and make that claim. WTF?

Frank, if you base your opinion on an N=1 case all the time, you'll be changing your opinon often as you talk to more new people. Unless, of course, that N happens to fit your personal bias.