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

Fday

training with any other effort/intensity feedback system such as HR, perceived exertion, stopwatch, etc.

I have been asking this on slowtwitch and the best I can ascertain from the replies the so-called evidence to support these devices and this method of training is entirely anecdotal. Thought I would ask here.

swampy1970

I can see a combination of power, hr monitoring and percieved exertion being useful - if anything to use as a series of checks/balances to keep a track of your current condition. I could see power monitoring being much better for keeping track of short intervals too, where hr lags, but reading the LCD might be a little difficult when out of the saddle in 53x13 trying to hold over 100rpm for 30 seconds. LOL

A good answer to this would be nice as I'm toying with the idea of getting some power monitoring device towards the end of the year. It was going to be earlier in the year but there was something about someone selling me some cranks for over a grand..... Frank!!!

Fday

I know that lots of arguments are made regarding these being a superior way to train but I don't believe a single shred of evidence exists that it is a superior way to how Merkx trained, which was with motivation, perceived exertion and stop watch, I suspect. But, to listen to the advocates, there can be no question. Hell, there is a whole forum devoted to the topic here.

So, how is the PC'ing going?, not to hijack my own thread

Felt_Rider

Did Merkx train with Powercranks

__________________
My Blog

Fday

One of them did. :-)

RChung

The one with 525 career victories, or the one with 9?

Fday

Which one do you think, the one with 9 of course, which gets us back to the topic of this thread because I suspect the one with 9 also trained with power, since I don't think he trained a lot with PC's. Where is the evidence that "training with power" offers any advantage over training using "traditional" methods.

frenchyge

It's the training that matters, not the feedback. The source of feedback is unimportant, as long as it provides quality feedback. Right now, power is the best source of feedback we have because it's repeatable and objective.

However, merely using power as the source of feedback really describes training by power, rather than training with power.

Fday

But, what is the evidence that "power is the best source of feedback"? Is there any real evidence that one kind of feedback is really better than another? Or, is this a case of one generation trying to be different, and, therefore, better, than the previous generation?

Steve_B

Can you define "this method of training", please? A power meter does not restrict how you train. It only measures what you do.

Steve_B

Well, as someone once put it, imagine going into a weight room and finding no numbers printed on the weights. It's a lot like that, having the weight printed on the side of the weights. It a more precise measurement.

I work as an engineer and I am always trying to get more precise instrumentation within the extent of my budget. It's pretty natural, no? With that precision comes a better ability to track changes in fitness and precisely target certain workout intensities.

Sorry that this is anecdotal but I guess I don't need a study to convince me of the need for precision.

Luke Schierts

If you have to ask if training with a power meter is better than any other way, then I,m guessing you have never trained with power. The amount of information you can obtain with a power meter is far greater (and better quality) than any other device. Knowing HR is good, but any HR monitors that I know of will only tell you what your average & max HR were,but not tell you what your HR was at any specific time during the ride. HR & PE arre both highly variable due to many factors. Speed has many variables also, like grade & wind that make using speed unreliable. Power on the other hand is power. 200watts uphill into a 30mph wind is the same as 200watts downhill with the wind. If used properly a power meter will tell you more about your strengths & weakness' in just a few months than several years worth of riding & guessing. And although there is a lot of number crunching & other work that goes along with using a power meter effectively, and a lot of planning on how to best put that information to good use, for some of us that is half the fun of it anyway. And for me there is no greater motivator to ride better, faster & harder than having good objective information to see improvements in my riding.

Fday

I did not pose the question to find out why you think the method to be advantageous. I understand the arguments. But, is there a single shred of evidence that supports that what "everyone" thinks to be true. People once thought the world was flat or that men couldn't fly or that the 4 minute mile was impossible. What we sometimes think to be true sometimes is not. It always helps to have evidence to support the contention or proof.

Fday

Your experience is an anecdotal report. I am still waiting for someone to come forward with some evidence that supports the contention that this method of training is superior to all others. I suspect no evidence exists. That doesn't mean it is not true as I suspect no one has ever studied the question. But, if it is ever studied, it is not clear to me it will demonstrate clear superiority.