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

Steve_B

"Hi, My name is Frank Day and I move goalposts as I see fit." That is not what your original question was.

Felt_Rider

Are you getting upset because people are picking on your buddy?

Personally I could care less if you are a PC user, but when someone comes on this site calls PM users hypocrites like he did several posts back, tries to pick apart a valid training tool used by a number of folks here in order to deceitfully market his own items I am going to make comments. I am quite alright if you want to make comments about me. Feel free to make some more if you desire.

__________________
My Blog

Fday

Go read my original question again and then tell me what the intent was. I am all ears.

Fday

LOL. Fewer people will see these threads than see them on ST. However, where better to ask a question as to what data supports something than amongst a group of its advocates. The fact that little or no data (other than anecdotal data) exists is not evidence that something is useless. It only says the usefulness has yet to be "proven".

When people don't have the answers they would like to have it seems they react with name calling. So be it. :-)

doctorSpoc

yes, you do... because the PM actually measures the actual intensity... it measures power... ...what you are ACTUALLY doing ... there is no guess work.. no error (..well very little error).

e.g. in a group ride last year i was doing 19 km/hr into a strong headwind at about 300 Watts... in the other direction i was doing almost 60km/hr at 250Watts... what would speed, cadence, gear etc told me about that effort... nothing! what would HR tell me? unless i wrote a hundred qualifiers HR would be almost as useless as the other readings... e.g. if i take a few days off my HR is elevated relative to what it would normally be in relation to power output.. RPE is even better than HR... so i need to know what my training was like in the past few days, what time of day it is, how warm is it, did i just drink a red bull...? all of this complexity or i can just look down at my power meter and know exactly what i'm doing at any given instant in time... after using a power meter i would never use or recommend the use of a HR monitor ever again... of all the method HR is the worst... it's just all over the map... useless... and i think counter productive.

aside from the accuracy thing.. there is the ease of use thing... one of the great benefits of a power meter (probably the biggest for me) is that there is no guess work, no thinking.. the numbers are what they are... it makes things very easy. you want to do a workout, you just go out and do it. you have the structure and the intensity and you just do it. a coach wants to prescribe a workout.. he just prescribes the workout structure and intensity (in power) that's it.. don't have to think about wind or false flats, indoors or outdoors, uphill, downhill... or whatever... you just do your workout and you go home. you want to know if you are doing better... you just look down at the PM and or look at your file.. that's it.. no thinking, no guessing, no approximations... you just look at the numbers... this is one of the problems i have with some of the discussions on this forum... because PM make things really easy and many people want to go and make them unnecessarily complex.. don't get it?

ironically, if you want to know if your PC are improving your performance... just look down at you PM and you will know in an instant if that's the case... you don't even need to do special test... you can get data from your everyday workouts.

for me, the second most valuable thing is you know how much time you are wasting by not riding at the prescribed intensity... as a busy person a power meter lets you accomplish more in less time but cutting down on all the wasted miles

if you want to know what you are actually doing and if you are improving.. get a power meter... after you use one for a few months you'll realize that before you were flying blind... just guesstimating.

Felt_Rider

Frank, is it too simple to say

Power Meter = Training Aide
Power Cranks = Training Aide

Let the person choose as they desire and as they believe?
Perhaps one, both or none?

__________________
My Blog

Fday

Huh? the only way to know how much power one is generating is to measure same. Power is an integral part of going fast.

The question is not whether measuring power or periodic testing is a good thing but how does using a power meter to measure training intensity rank compared to other methods of measuring training intensity in helping to achieve power improvement gains?

When race officials stop using a clock and start measuing athletes power to determine who wins, then I can say with some certainty that training with a power meter will undoubtably be superior to other methods of training feedback and cyclists will stop wearing aero helmets.

Fday

Your points are all good. the same exact question can be asked of the HR monitor. How much performance gain could be attributed to it over using PE as the feedback mechanism. My own experience would say, not much. The main advantage of the HR monitor that I see is helping inexperienced new runners to pace themselves as they develop an aerobic base and learn what different efforts feel like. Once they have that they usually know their HR within a couple of beats without looking at their watch. I think if it were to be studied, I think the advantage would be small or non-existant.

Don't see the PM being used the same way. From a coaching perspective I could see the PM files as an incentive to make sure the user does the workouts specified. "Cheating" or going lazy is going to be caught. But, if one doesn't have a coach, that advantage disappears.

Steve_B

Very good, Frank. You get a star for your forehead. So isn't it logical to measure progess in training with that same instrument?

Fday

Of course it is logical. The question is/was: is there any evidence beyond anecdotal evidence to show that it is more effective than using other methods.

Steve_B

How could something less precise be more effective?

http://www.cyclingforums.com/showpo...8&postcount=110

bbrauer

That's not really evidence. That's a random occurence. Perhaps we can attribute your relative health this year to that butterfly in Brazil flapping its wings, causing ever-so-slight variations in atmospheric conditions that directed that flu virus in another direction just as you walked by and inhaled.

This thread has gone on too long as just a back and forth. The real motivation for the OP is the non-stop criticism, ridicule and dismissive attitude directed at Mr. Powercranks by the predominant "tribe" here, particularly for the alleged lack of peer reviewed evidence to support the efficacy of his cranks.

Although his argument is flawed, can you at least accept that if PCs are required to have extensive peer reviewed studies in order for Mr. Powercrank to not be insulted and bagged on constantly here, shouldn't power meters be held to the same standard.

I don't use PCs, so I don't really have a horse in the contest, but there is pleny of anecdotal evidence by many people for whom they seem to work, and on a basic intuitive level, they make some sense as a feedback tool, much as a power meter is a feedback tool. The cult-like intolerance for differing ideas in this place kind of bugs.

__________________
www.liquidfitness.com

Steve_B

Well, as much as you have Tom Sawyer'ed me into cutting and pasting when you are perfectly capable of doing the same:

From post #1 then you went on to say that anecdotal evidence was not sufficient (post 14). However, Sunday (post 119), it was:

Which is a question that by it's very nature asks for anecdotal evidence.

So you don't even know what you want Frank.

Steve_B

FWIW, I could give a flying fuck about PC's and I'm not trying to bad mouth them. I just think that Frank has his head up his ass.