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

Felt_Rider

Maybe you have a doppleganger that is posting these or you're getting "old timers disease" like me.

__________________
My Blog

daveryanwyoming

Ahh, the evil twin theory.

I definitely knew about the most recent reference, it was the other two in the past week that confuse me. Not saying I didn't use the word, I do suffer from that Ole timers disease, just I can't remember it at all.....

Steve_B

OK, maybe I'm the one with the bad memory. I found one but apparently there isn't another here or on Wattage (which is all I've been paying attention to lately). Sorry!

daveryanwyoming

No worries, I've been following the wattage thread closely since it's an interesting topic, but haven't really had anything to offer to that thread. But I guess that's why it's on my mind.....

-Dave

Fday

Looks like you are making a good first stab at, at least, asking the question. Congratulation. Hopefully, your data will give a good first, tentative, answer to the question. If so, I suspect, that many here will not like the answer but we shall find out. I look forward to seeing your data.

Fday

Actually, I think you could make sense of whether you were losing weight (or what your weight actually was) from a bathroom scale with random errors in it since, if you measured everyday, the errors would average out (if the errors were truly random). One would simply have to look at the average over a 2 week period or so to see what was happening. Since weight loss occurs slowly, this would not present much of a burden to following this trend.

It is not necessary to put random errors into the power meter to answer this question (in fact, it would be counter productive) since one isn't asking the question as to whether training with a power meter works. One wants to know if training with a power meter is better than "equivalent" training using other forms of training intensity feedback.

frenchyge

That may be what *you* want to know, but everyone else here has already acknowledged that if you do the equivalent training then you should expect equivalent results, regardless of the feedback tool.

As has been pointed out probably a hundred times on this thread alone, the benefit of properly using a power meter is that one probably wouldn't do the "equivalent" training as if they were using one of the other commonly available devices*.

* - 101.

RChung

You're making the non-random error of thinking that random errors have zero mean.

Fday

While everyone here may assume that a PM helps them to do better training compared to using other methods for assessing training intensity, the reason for actually doing the study is to see if this hypothesis is valid or not.

Further, your statement requires "proper" use of a PM without defining what "proper" use entails for them to "probably" to see benefit. Of course, if this study shows there to be no difference you can just say they didn't use it "properly", making the result invalid. Define what you mean by "proper" use now so we can know if this study needs to be repeated using a different protocol should it show no benefit to a PM over other methods.

This is not an unreasonable request. I put forth what "proper" use of PowerCranks entails to see optimum benefit and I criticize so-called studies that supposedly show no benefits to using the device for failing to use them "properly". I think the same could be said of any study looking at any training device or technique. It should be used in accordance with the best method when assessing its utility. This would also go for the use of the HR monitor or perceived exertion or anything else the PM is being compared to. A poorly designed and run study hardly has any value.

Squint

13 pages and 490 posts and I wonder if anyone (not a fake customer) has purchased even one set of PCs as a result of this thread. If you have, please post here. On the other hand, if you will never purchase PCs as a result of this thread or for any other reason, you might as well post as well.

I'll start:

Won't Buy List

1. Squint

Felt_Rider

Since the start of this thread I bought a power meter even if there is a "lack of evidence" as some would ponder.

__________________
My Blog

Steve_B

Try 33 pages...

Frank has displayed a wonderful capability for talking (typing) in perfect circles in this thread. I wonder if that perfect circle capability that he has came from using a Power Keyboard (TM)? What is the evidence that a PK is better than any other keyboard? Can we have a study?

robuk

I've used power for 7 years and was discussing how useful power is with Juerg Feldmann @ FaCT. He wrote this to me, please enjoy:-

"Power tap is a very nice tool , as is a heart rate monitor or a lactate analyser and so on.

Power can be used perfect for high intensity work outs like intervalls in the time area of 15 - 30 sec perhaps up to 1 min . because HR has a too long lag for that.

Using % of power is about the same as using % of max HR and % of VO2 max and % of a not existing lactate value.

% are mathematical informations , needed to finish your PhD or what ever work.

The human body is not a motor and the wattage are not always the same intensity . Here just to give you some idea.
Results of a top world class MTB person. Tested on Taxc wattage trainer.
Test 1: 1 min intervalls ( conconi type test.
LBP wattage 450
LBP HR 165
Max Watt 540
Max HR 179

Test 2 FaCT classical test 3 min intervalls
LBP wattage 390
LBP HR 163
Max Watt 460
Max HR 184

Field test : After resting days
HR 155- 160 duration 2 h
Fixed HR first hour wattage 370 - 380
dropped after 70 min to 350 - 360
dropped after 1 h 45 min to 340 - 350
Lactate stable always below 1.5 / ammonia stable, blood glucose stable

Same training after 2 days of training .
45 min 360 - 370 start to drop after 45 min 340 - 350
after 1h 15 drop to 320 - 330 and stayed there.
In a recovered stage that would be a HR of 140 +- which would have been in the FFA zone.
Lactate always below 1.5 . Ammonia very high , blood sugar low 4.0 ( nearly hypoglyc.)
Summary . Wattage is an external info (physical info ) assuming that our body is like a motor.
It does not take in consideration , that the fuel tanks ( liver / muscles ) may be differently loaded, as it does not take in consideration , that certain body systems ( brain ) may be "fatigued' or in recovery stage and can't contribute the same amount of energy and help to produce this power.

Summary : for longer trainings the power has to be put in combination with HR and if possible with respiratory rate and some metabolic info. Alone it is just wattage with very little help of knowing what you stressed with that particular workout.

340 wattage can be one day perfect STF limit training with good respiration and good RPM . in a fatigued stage of any of the systems 340 can be a "surviving " intensity with FTF to help , high lactate and high HR and an overload of RR. Yes it still was 340 wattage but with a completely different stress on your system . So you may have to try to put the usage of wattage into another more open view of what wattage realy is ".