correct way to pedal

[JayKosta]

Perfected circular pedaling means the application (or attempted application) of continuous torque by each leg around the pedaling circle, except between 1 and 5 o'c this will be minimal torque. This is what PC's force a rider to do and even though extra muscles are used, because of split concentration it will always be weaker than mashing. Therefore PC's cannot increase power output beyond that of a masher.

====================================

Are you saying that 'mashers' are not capable of doing 'attempted application of continuous torque'?
Or that there is something about the 'perfected circular pedaling' style that reduces the power during the 'mashing' phase?

I'm not sure why you think the 2 styles cannot be combined.

Jay Kosta
Endwell NY USA

 

[FrankDay]

Question is, if other sports could use power would they?

I am sure some would experiment with it. But, I suspect that most would find it not demonstrably beneficial

Rowing seems another sport like cycling which gains a lot of information from power and structure a great deal of training around it. Sailors are also making good use of powermeters.

Having been a rower in college it would be an easy job to add a stain guage to each oar. But, more important than actual power in rowing seems to be timing (at least in multiple person shells). Such time and power application form information might be useful in training to enahnce the teamwork aspect of the sport. I doubt the power number per se would be particularly useful (they have that now in their rowing ergometers anyhow, just not while on the water). Not sure how power is more useful to sailors than speed. What would be useful and is being used are GPS devices to help understand the effect of currents and see net speed towards the goal.

But then I have heard that rowers are currently focusing on the return stroke to ensure power is applied throughout the rowing motion.

You laugh. the return does affect the speed of the boat. When I rowed the standard technique was to have a quick start to the recovery and slow just before the catch. Our coach figured this maximized the boat speed variability whereas a he figured a steady boat speed would be ultimately faster so he developed a different technique, slow at the start of the return (to keep the speed of the boat up) and then quicker towards the catch. The whole idea was to do as much as possible to keep boat speed up even when the oars were not in the water. Whether it was important to our success that year could be debated but the heavyweights did sweep the IRA's that year (Varsity, JV, Freshmen). So, it seems, paying attention to small details can have big benefits

I still fail to see how any study could prove the superiority of device X over device Y in terms of improving performance when it's the person performing the action which yields the gain. The device just measures it.

Well, many here have touted the superiority of the PM for both training and racing. Are their observations real or not. If there is an obvious superiority of one method over another there must be a way of measuring that superiority. When it comes to racing it seems either power, or time, or results, or some other important race related metric could be used. Doing a study comparing the benefits of a PM over another metric like HRM or PE should be relatively easy if someone would try. Seems like at least one has done so and has found out the advantage is not only obvious but isn't even there at all. Of course, until we can see the study we can't know how good it was.

 

[FrankDay]

It's like the brand of scale used having an influence on the weight loss method used. When I started coaching it was all speedo and how many miles you did, then it was HR training and spending time at threshold HR and now with power we can get a little more specific.

The question isn't whether you can make an argument for its use but whether that increased specificity makes a difference. And, if it does, how big is the difference. The device is not free, afterall, typically costing between $1500 - $5,000. So, does the athlete gain any benefit from that expenditure? And, is there a benefit to the athlete getting the more expensive brand for even more specificity. And, where does this specificity benefit end, would a PM that was accurate to 0.01 watt give better results than one that was only accurate to 0.1 watt?

But it's typical Frank trying to muddy the waters. The power meter doesn't improve performance it just measure performance. No other metric does this.

Really, speedometers and stopwatches measure performance when used properly. What you really meant is PM's measure power, no other device does that. But, does having that information help the athlete more than not having it? That is the question. Why would an athlete want to spend all that money if they knew it wouldn't help them perform better? Since you are such an advocate for the tool (despite admitting above it doesn't help improve performance) I can see how you might call it muddying the waters to simply ask a question that hasn't been answered (scientifically, at least) yet. I guess there is no reason to ask the question since you have declared above that a PM does not help improve performance. Why are you such a big advocate then?

 

[FrankDay]

Perfected circular pedaling means the application (or attempted application) of continuous torque by each leg around the pedaling circle, except between 1 and 5 o'c this will be minimal torque. This is what PC's force a rider to do and even though extra muscles are used, because of split concentration it will always be weaker than mashing. Therefore PC's cannot increase power output beyond that of a masher.

You are wrong because there is no need for the athlete to "concentrate" on anything when doing this because the PC's do the "concentrating" for you. The rider can "concentrate" on pushing as much as he desires, if he desires. Or, once the basic technique is learned adequately the rider could even "concentrate" on your technique, whatever that is, assuming your technique doesn't deliberately put negative forces on the pedal somewhere around the circle.

 

[FrankDay]

Question is, if other sports could use power would they?

Saw this posted on ST and thought it germaine to your question.

Renato Canova’s comments about Boston

This is interesting reading from one of the top marathon coaches.
http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=4011478
Now I say my explanation for what happened.
1) In a course without rabbits, nobody supposed that one athlete (Ryan) could go from the start at so fast pace, without any mental inhibition. Ryan was wonderful as personality and as interpretation of the race, knowing his only chance is in a very fast but even pace. Of course, he didn't know the potentiality of Geoffrey and Moses, and he tried his best. Without him,probably the race could be a normal competition, with a final time about 2:05.

2) Geoffrey and Moses never looked at the watch, so were not afarid about the speed because they didn't want to know it. Honestly, we feared Gebremariam, and the tactic, involving Geoffrey, Moses and Robert Cheruiyot, was in any case to push very hard immediately after 30 km.

3) Without any mental conditioning, Geoffrey hammered in incredible way, running 28:24 between 30k and 40k. But wonderful was Moses, having a max gap of 8.0, never thinking to look for maintaining the second position only, but always concentrated on Geoffrey. His ability to stay in the race, in his first marathon, closing the gap after being 50m behind, was something really unbelievable (14:07 between 35 and 40k). And they were still able to finish last 2195m in 6:14 Geoffrey (exactly 2:50 per km) and 6:18 Moses (2:51.7).

4) They average was 2:55 per km, and this is possible only for athletes able running at the moment 10k under 27:00.

The reality is that Marathon is changing, with this type of athletes. Till 5 years ago, few athletes able running about 27:00 moved to marathon, and only when old, and no more to run faster than 27:30. The same Tergat (WR holder of 10000m in 26'27") moved to marathon when no more able to run faster than 27:10.

Instead, athletes like Geoffrey and Moses move to marathon WHEN ARE ABLE TO RUN 26:45. This fact provokes different effects :

a) These athletes are younger (so more fresh in their mind and their body) and faster than before

b) Their training changed. I use very high intensity for extensive workouts (for example, Moses ran 40k 3 weeks before Boston in 2:07:15, on rough road, start and finish in the same place, and heavy training shoes), and of course I need to give more days of recovery between one specific wokouts and the next one. In this case, Moses had the next training on track (10 x 1600m with 2' recovery in 4'35" / 4'32" with the last in 4'17") exactly 6 days after his 40k.

c) Their level of intensity NEVER goes under 85%. This is a big difference, because in Kenya and Ethiopia the post-race behavior is to relax without doing any alternative training for rebuilding speed and muscle strength, so everytime the athletes prepare a new marathon they start again from a low level. Instead, Geoffrey using competitions, Moses using training, both of them maintain a high quality also short time after the marathon. We saw this last year with Geoffrey and Wilson Kiprop, this year with Mary Keitany.

d) Physiologically speaking, this type of athletes are able running a HM near 6 mml of lactate, and their marathon is near 4 mml. In other words, if till 5 years ago the best marathon runners were DIESEL ENGINES, now are TURBO DIESEL (whar already happened with Paula Radcliffe).

I cannot see how these athletes having access to their current power would do anything more than divert attention from how they feel and, possibly, confuse them. They train and race based upon time, speed, and perceived effort. Just because it is possible to measure power in cyclists, why should knowing this necessarily improve outcome?

 

[FrankDay]

But then I have heard that rowers are currently focusing on the return stroke to ensure power is applied throughout the rowing motion.

Actually, now that you mention this, I have thought of a way to apply what I have learned through my PC experience to rowing. The concept is identical. In the PC's the athlete typically doesn't do any real work on the upstroke except for increasing the potential energy of the leg which gravity returns to the bike on the downstroke. If, in rowing, the slide were modified such that the height of it were a couple of inches higher at the catch than at the start of the recovery then the athlete would be increasing the potential energy of the entire body during the recovery that could be recovered during the power phase. 200 lbs raised 2-3 inches 30-40 times a minute is a fair amount of energy potential not being captured now. The athlete would have to learn a new coordination to keep the oar level in the water, etc., but what else is new. Anyhow, the potential is there to anyone willing to try it. I am quite certain our old coach at Navy would not have been afraid to experiment with this idea.

 

[CoachFergie]

Not sure how power is more useful to sailors than speed. What would be useful and is being used are GPS devices to help understand the effect of currents and see net speed towards the goal.

So currents and wind don't affect rowers and speed can be used to accurately measure performance in rowing

Well, many here have touted the superiority of the PM for both training and racing. Are their observations real or not. If there is an obvious superiority of one method over another there must be a way of measuring that superiority.

No better metric for assessing the work demands of cycling.
No better metric for assessing the work capacity of the cyclist.
No better metric for prescribing training zones for the cyclist.
No better metric for assessing how well the cyclists met the demands in the event (Lim etal, 2011a).
Proving to be a sensitive measure to determine differences in position and large differences in tyre pressure (Lim etal, 2011b).

When it comes to racing it seems either power, or time, or results, or some other important race related metric could be used.

Keep repeating the lie.

Doing a study comparing the benefits of a PM over another metric like HRM or PE should be relatively easy if someone would try. Seems like at least one has done so and has found out the advantage is not only obvious but isn't even there at all. Of course, until we can see the study we can't know how good it was.

Look forward to critiquing it as I am sure many others will.

 

[CoachFergie]

The question isn't whether you can make an argument for its use but whether that increased specificity makes a difference.

There is no other measure of work capacity. You can't tell an athlete to go out and sit on X hr or Y rpe because there are so many confounding variables. You can tell a rider to sit on set power because you will know from testing what they should be capable of. HR and RPE is just guessing.

And, if it does, how big is the difference. The device is not free, afterall, typically costing between $1500 - $5,000. So, does the athlete gain any benefit from that expenditure?

That is the cost of eliminating the guesswork.

And, is there a benefit to the athlete getting the more expensive brand for even more specificity. And, where does this specificity benefit end, would a PM that was accurate to 0.01 watt give better results than one that was only accurate to 0.1 watt?

When you consider that races are won and lost by such small margins, especially track events, that extra money is well worth it. Lim and others (2011) have shown that a powertap is sensitive enough to measure differences in tyre pressures and subtle position changes on the bike.

If it wasn't for the powermeter some people might actually think the effort of riding a Gimmickcrank was actually making them a better rider but the power meter is sensitive enough to show there is no benefit. They might be deluded by higher heart rates but that would be smoke and mirrors in the same way that any non specific training stimulus induces a high HR or RPE like running or training in the gym with weights.

Really, speedometers and stopwatches measure performance when used properly.

Keep repeating the lie. Even on an indoor track conditions change frequently making the stopwatch far less accurate than wattage to measure performance.

What you really meant is PM's measure power, no other device does that. But, does having that information help the athlete more than not having it?

It's the difference between knowing you did the work and guessing you did the work.

That is the question. Why would an athlete want to spend all that money if they knew it wouldn't help them perform better?

Why not try a bigger font to try and reinforce the lie.

The athlete doing the specific work and recovering from it makes them perform better.

The athlete riding in better position on the bike makes them perform better.

The athlete maintaining a low body fat percentage makes them perform better.

The athlete eating the right diet makes them perform better.

The athlete using Gimmickcranks makes them perform worse.

The power meter is just the measure we use to track this performance.

Since you are such an advocate for the tool (despite admitting above it doesn't help improve performance)

As shown above I am quite clear about the difference between the independent variables in the performance equation being training, diet, health, body composition, recovery, goals, experience and wattage being the dependant variable we measure to assess the manipulation of those variables.

I can see how you might call it muddying the waters to simply ask a question that hasn't been answered (scientifically, at least) yet. I guess there is no reason to ask the question since you have declared above that a PM does not help improve performance. Why are you such a big advocate then?

Because I understand the difference between assessing a Gimmickcrank with HR or RPE, "oh it's so hard to ride", or "look my heart rate was through the roof", and looking at a power meter and going "crikey I am not putting out any power on the bike" and looking at the months I would waste training in a non specific fashion to how I intended to race, looking at the research showing no increase in performance (watts) from Gimmickcrank use and questioning whether claimed Gimmickcrank users really benefited from their use.

I claim that Nuyens would have won far more races training with normal cranks. How would you test that claim Frank

 

[CoachFergie]

You are wrong because there is no need for the athlete to "concentrate" on anything when doing this because the PC's do the "concentrating" for you. The rider can "concentrate" on pushing as much as he desires, if he desires. Or, once the basic technique is learned adequately the rider could even "concentrate" on your technique, whatever that is, assuming your technique doesn't deliberately put negative forces on the pedal somewhere around the circle.

Except Bohm etal (2008) showed this does not happen.

Love the contempt that you have for people here Frank perpetuating these lies.

 

[function]

http://w4.ub.uni-konstanz.de/cpa/article/viewFile/3226/3028
Will await it's publication in peer review press.

That's a real shame and a terrible way to go about learning, that ethos is what results in things like http://math.rejecta.org/about-rejecta-mathematica

I'm not pro PowerCranks but i keep my mind open especially if someone provides new information, peer reviewed or otherwise.

 

[CoachFergie]

That's a real shame and a terrible way to go about learning, that ethos is what results in things like http://math.rejecta.org/about-rejecta-mathematica

I'm not pro PowerCranks but i keep my mind open especially if someone provides new information, peer reviewed or otherwise.

As mentioned I face a daily flood of new ideas, equipment, methods, supplements and have to set standards and criteria for how I assess each item.

An open mind is a wonderful thing but are you suggesting that every piece of information is given the same weighting? The peer review process helps to weed out a lot of garbage in this case when the marketing claims of the Gimmickcrank site is used as a reference then one does have to ask the question. My review of that piece in particular finds some pretty clear bias and I wonder if Frank has led researchers in their thinking.

One can only take so much red herring in the diet.

While the rejected mathematics looks interesting does it really serve a purpose or is this a noble attempt that only results in more muddied waters?

 

[Tapeworm]

I am sure some would experiment with it. But, I suspect that most would find it not demonstrably beneficial

You suspect? I wonder why they are trying to develop a running power meter then?

Having been a rower in college it would be an easy job to add a stain guage to each oar. But, more important than actual power in rowing seems to be timing (at least in multiple person shells). Such time and power application form information might be useful in training to enahnce the teamwork aspect of the sport. I doubt the power number per se would be particularly useful (they have that now in their rowing ergometers anyhow, just not while on the water).

The AIS seems to put a lot of faith in power based training for rowers. I guess they collect and base training around the data for ****s and giggles.

Not sure how power is more useful to sailors than speed. What would be useful and is being used are GPS devices to help understand the effect of currents and see net speed towards the goal.

Never seen a power meter on a winch? I wonder why sailors use it then? Must be for fun to get that meaningless data.

You laugh. the return does affect the speed of the boat. When I rowed the standard technique was to have a quick start to the recovery and slow just before the catch. Our coach figured this maximized the boat speed variability whereas a he figured a steady boat speed would be ultimately faster so he developed a different technique, slow at the start of the return (to keep the speed of the boat up) and then quicker towards the catch. The whole idea was to do as much as possible to keep boat speed up even when the oars were not in the water. Whether it was important to our success that year could be debated but the heavyweights did sweep the IRA's that year (Varsity, JV, Freshmen). So, it seems, paying attention to small details can have big benefits

Strange, the rowers I know just focus on hitting target wattage. Seems like the return happens as a matter of course... a bit like cycling.

Well, many here have touted the superiority of the PM for both training and racing. Are their observations real or not. If there is an obvious superiority of one method over another there must be a way of measuring that superiority. When it comes to racing it seems either power, or time, or results, or some other important race related metric could be used. Doing a study comparing the benefits of a PM over another metric like HRM or PE should be relatively easy if someone would try. Seems like at least one has done so and has found out the advantage is not only obvious but isn't even there at all. Of course, until we can see the study we can't know how good it was.

And as I have said the only true way to validate any such study would be the measurement of... power. Hence by using the very metric in question to quantify the results proves the point that it is a meaningless comparison. But of course the only reason why you are on an "anti-power" bashing is that power a) helps to disprove your claims b) is something which is used by those who question your methods. I have no doubt that if Fergie and Coggan et al based a their training methodology around HR you would mock that just as equally. All the science behind the reasons why power is a useful metric have been laid out many times before.

 

[FrankDay]

You suspect? I wonder why they are trying to develop a running power meter then?

Who is they? What do they see as their target market? Will they "prove" the benefit to runners before they bring it to market or will the benefit just be presumed? I could see developing accelerometers to help in improving form and smoothness but a "power meter"? Nah.

The AIS seems to put a lot of faith in power based training for rowers. I guess they collect and base training around the data for ****s and giggles.

I have no problem in testing for power in rowers but I see no usefulness in putting it into the boats as an aid during races. As I said, measuring power is easily and regularly done by rowers on land now. I have no problem with that. But, as in cycling, rowing is more than just about power. If maximum power means you loose the set-up you may as well kiss it off. No win for you today.

Never seen a power meter on a winch? I wonder why sailors use it then? Must be for fun to get that meaningless data.

Actually, I never have seen a PM on a winch. I thought you were talking about the power in the sails going into the water driving the boat. Anyhow, if the big ocean racing teams want to use a power meter in selecting the gorillas they have on the winches, so be it. Don't see it as being very useful to the ordinary sailboat racer.

Strange, the rowers I know just focus on hitting target wattage. Seems like the return happens as a matter of course... a bit like cycling.

I would predict that any rower who lets "the return happen as a matter of course" will never win anything substantial. Rowing is extremely technical and the return is extremely important. I don't care how much power one can put into the water, if the rest of the stroke is not there, they aren't going to win much. Clearly, you have never rowed.

And as I have said the only true way to validate any such study would be the measurement of... power. Hence by using the very metric in question to quantify the results proves the point that it is a meaningless comparison. But of course the only reason why you are on an "anti-power" bashing is that power a) helps to disprove your claims b) is something which is used by those who question your methods. I have no doubt that if Fergie and Coggan et al based a their training methodology around HR you would mock that just as equally. All the science behind the reasons why power is a useful metric have been laid out many times before.

Such hogwash. The test of whether a power meter helps with racing is what it does to racing results, not power. Power is just one aspect of racing. If the PM user is so distracted by the numbers in front of them that they can't ride a straight line, miss breaks, or don't pay attention to how aero they are it is unlikely that they will perform optimally. That having been said, even if you want to use power as the metric to judge the PM, there is zero evidence that using a PM in training over any other metric results in better power improvement. I am not on an anti-power bashing campaign, I am simply pointing out that the claims of many here to its usefulness and superiority have yet to be proven. Fergie and Coggan and many others base their training systems on the effort they ask the riders to perform. Those systems are sound and based on science. My criticism regards their implication that the results of training will be better if one uses a PM (cost >$1,000) as a measure of that training effort instead of a HRM (cost <$100) or PE scale (cost free) or something else. There is simply no data to support that view.

 

[CoachFergie]

Who is they? What do they see as their target market? Will they "prove" the benefit to runners before they bring it to market or will the benefit just be presumed? I could see developing accelerometers to help in improving form and smoothness but a "power meter"? Nah.

Ah Tapeworm, there will always be naysayers.

I have no problem in testing for power in rowers but I see no usefulness in putting it into the boats as an aid during races. As I said, measuring power is easily and regularly done by rowers on land now. I have no problem with that. But, as in cycling, rowing is more than just about power. If maximum power means you loose the set-up you may as well kiss it off. No win for you today.

Glad you said that because....

Actually, I never have seen a PM on a winch.

There ya go folks, if Frank hasn't seen it it doesn't exist.

Such hogwash. The test of whether a power meter helps with racing is what it does to racing results, not power.

But Frank you have just said cycling is more than just power.

But again you are creating a strawman claiming that a power meter should help you win a race. Training, motivation, diet, recovery, genetics, bike set up, riding technique, tactics, management help you win races.

Power is just one aspect of racing. If the PM user is so distracted by the numbers in front of them that they can't ride a straight line, miss breaks, or don't pay attention to how aero they are it is unlikely that they will perform optimally.

Didn't stop Nuyens from winning Flanders using one.

That having been said, even if you want to use power as the metric to judge the PM, there is zero evidence that using a PM in training over any other metric results in better power improvement.

100% correct Frank. The power meter doesn't cause the improvement. Training, recovery and diet do. The power meter measures that improvement. Can you tell a rider they have improved because their heart rate is higher for 60min or they sustain a RPE of 8 for 10mins longer than last week?

I am not on an anti-power bashing campaign, I am simply pointing out that the claims of many here to its usefulness and superiority have yet to be proven.

Seeing you are the master of made up claims I am all ears on these exaggerated claims you speak of

My criticism regards their implication that the results of training will be better if one uses a PM (cost >$1,000) as a measure of that training effort instead of a HRM (cost <$100) or PE scale (cost free) or something else. There is simply no data to support that view.

Strawman.

 

[Tapeworm]

I have no problem in testing for power in rowers but I see no usefulness in putting it into the boats as an aid during races. As I said, measuring power is easily and regularly done by rowers on land now. I have no problem with that. But, as in cycling, rowing is more than just about power. If maximum power means you loose the set-up you may as well kiss it off. No win for you today.

And how does your position on HR/RPE/timing make any different the above statement?

I would predict that any rower who lets "the return happen as a matter of course" will never win anything substantial. Rowing is extremely technical and the return is extremely important. I don't care how much power one can put into the water, if the rest of the stroke is not there, they aren't going to win much. Clearly, you have never rowed.

Spoken with such conviction based on..... Maybe the rowers I speak to train with the AIS, maybe the rowers I speak to have a few very nice medals in their cabinet. AH! But this doesn't fit with Frank's view hence they are hacks. I wonder why some of these rowers often refer the wattage they obtain in training rather than speed of their trials?

Such hogwash. The test of whether a power meter helps with racing is what it does to racing results, not power. Power is just one aspect of racing. If the PM user is so distracted by the numbers in front of them that they can't ride a straight line, miss breaks, or don't pay attention to how aero they are it is unlikely that they will perform optimally. That having been said, even if you want to use power as the metric to judge the PM, there is zero evidence that using a PM in training over any other metric results in better power improvement. I am not on an anti-power bashing campaign, I am simply pointing out that the claims of many here to its usefulness and superiority have yet to be proven. Fergie and Coggan and many others base their training systems on the effort they ask the riders to perform. Those systems are sound and based on science. My criticism regards their implication that the results of training will be better if one uses a PM (cost >$1,000) as a measure of that training effort instead of a HRM (cost <$100) or PE scale (cost free) or something else. There is simply no data to support that view.

You do understand that one does not have to watch the PM during a race don't you? And that the data afterwards is just valuable?

So in a study of the "most effective training metric" you propose to quantify results not by power but by a race? Oh, classic. I'll have to put that in the next study. "Abstract: 'Person X' showed no improvement in power but they won a race afterwards so our training methods are validated."

 

[FrankDay]

I have no problem in testing for power in rowers but I see no usefulness in putting it into the boats as an aid during races. As I said, measuring power is easily and regularly done by rowers on land now. I have no problem with that. But, as in cycling, rowing is more than just about power. If maximum power means you loose the set-up you may as well kiss it off. No win for you today.

And how does your position on HR/RPE/timing make any different the above statement?

I am a little confused. Rowing and cycling are quite separate sports. Cycling events last 5-6 hours. Rowing events typically 5-8 minutes. Further, power is much more important in rowing than in cycling because rowers do not have to worry about aerodynamics and, except for the scullers, steering. But, that does not mean that what happens when the oar is out of the water is not important as that keeps boat speed up and sets up the ability to apply power when in the water. An oarsman could have great power on the rowing ergometer but have such poor technique that he upsets the set-up or timing of the boat on the water and actually slow it down. So, it is not clear to me that measuring power is the most important element in selecting a crew. A crew needs 8 men who work well together, it really is the ultimate team sport. A strong man who can't work with the others doesn't fit in and will slow the boat down. A coach who relies solely on which athletes can generate the most power to pick his crews is unlikely to win much, I predict.

Spoken with such conviction based on..... Maybe the rowers I speak to train with the AIS, maybe the rowers I speak to have a few very nice medals in their cabinet. AH! But this doesn't fit with Frank's view hence they are hacks. I wonder why some of these rowers often refer the wattage they obtain in training rather than speed of their trials?

And, your crew credentials are… you speak with them? Bring just one of those medal holders here and ask him to post with a straight face that what happens when the oar is out of the water isn't important to winning, that they just let it happen, whatever that might be. I will wait patiently.

You do understand that one does not have to watch the PM during a race don't you? And that the data afterwards is just valuable?

That is about the only possible reason I could see for having one of these, to help the coach better understand what is going on with the athlete. Yet, the use of that data for that purpose has not been shown to have a benefit either. Could this be like the case for radical mastectomy for the treatment of cancer. The treatment seemed so obviously better than lumpectomy that they had trouble getting approval to do the studies and trouble to get people to enter the studies. But, once they actually did the study, the more radical procedure, cutting out more cancer, had no additional benefit. It may appear to you that the benefits are obvious. But, until they are proven they remain unproven.

So in a study of the "most effective training metric" you propose to quantify results not by power but by a race? Oh, classic. I'll have to put that in the next study. "Abstract: 'Person X' showed no improvement in power but they won a race afterwards so our training methods are validated."

No, if you are only interested in power measure power. But, I can assure you I can reliably increase power in most cyclists by simply making the aerodynamics worse. In this case the increase in power could actually slow him down. Just as a high powered rower on the ergometer with poor technique in the boat can slow a boat down. If an athlete is focused on one aspect of their game to the exclusion of all others then even though you may help improve power you might hurt their racing. People do not buy PM's just to increase their power (well, maybe some do) because they do not give medals to the rider with the most power. People get these things to improve their racing. Either way, there is no evidence that having or using a PM improves either power or racing over the use of alternative feedback methods of trying to accomplish the same end.

 

[CoachFergie]

Further, power is much more important in rowing than in cycling because rowers do not have to worry about aerodynamics and, except for the scullers, steering.

Rather narrow definition of cycling considering the majority of Olympic events are shorter than 40km.

Aerodynamics? Lim has published a study this year on the accuracy of a power meter in measuring changes in position on the bike. Very accurate.

That is about the only possible reason I could see for having one of these, to help the coach better understand what is going on with the athlete.

I thought RPE and HR were just as accurate?

Yet, the use of that data for that purpose has not been shown to have a benefit either.

Yes how could knowing what power you needed to produce, how much power you were producing in training and how much power you produced on race day be of any use to a rider.

Could you claim that a rider needs to sit on a certain HR or % of some threshold HR to win a race and that the HR he achieved in training would be the same as he needed to achieve on race day?

Could this be like the case for radical mastectomy for the treatment of cancer. The treatment seemed so obviously better than lumpectomy that they had trouble getting approval to do the studies and trouble to get people to enter the studies. But, once they actually did the study, the more radical procedure, cutting out more cancer, had no additional benefit. It may appear to you that the benefits are obvious. But, until they are proven they remain unproven.

What is PM use meant to be proving?

No, if you are only interested in power measure power. But, I can assure you I can reliably increase power in most cyclists by simply making the aerodynamics worse.

Narrow assumption, I conservatively estimate that 10,000 variables go into a world class performance. Not all have anything to do with the power produced on the day.

We used to test aerodynamics in the windtunnel in a static position. Now we have the riders pedalling at race cadence and race power to determine if the aerodynamically optimal position is one they can actually ride in.

In this case the increase in power could actually slow him down. Just as a high powered rower on the ergometer with poor technique in the boat can slow a boat down.

We have a rider whose 5min power is 500watts on a climb but on the Auckland track (pig of a track to ride, very badly designed bankings) for a 4:55min pursuit only average 404 watts. If we had such a narrow view of performance we might think that 5min power on an erg is a predictor of pursuit performance.

If an athlete is focused on one aspect of their game to the exclusion of all others then even though you may help improve power you might hurt their racing.

Don't you worry Frank, I and many of the other coaches here fully understand that racing is more than just presenting the numbers from the power meter and getting your medal.

Either way, there is no evidence that having or using a PM improves either power or racing over the use of alternative feedback methods of trying to accomplish the same end.

Strawman. What other methods of feedback are we talking?

 

[FrankDay]

I conservatively estimate that 10,000 variables go into a world class performance. Not all have anything to do with the power produced on the day.

That many variables you conservatively estimate yet you have never seen a rider at any level who needed to work on pedaling technique. I look forward to seeing your entire list someday.

 

[Tapeworm]

I am a little confused. Rowing and cycling are quite separate sports. Cycling events last 5-6 hours. Rowing events typically 5-8 minutes.

So am I. Flying 250m, Match Sprints, Kilo, Team Pursuit, Individual Pursuit, Prologue time trials... or do these not count as cycling events?

And, your crew credentials are… you speak with them? Bring just one of those medal holders here and ask him to post with a straight face that what happens when the oar is out of the water isn't important to winning, that they just let it happen, whatever that might be. I will wait patiently.

No, I don't row. And I didn't say it doesn't matter but rather the focus is on power. And it seems to be a rather important one. I wonder why they were always being weighed and put on ergs for selection?

It may appear to you that the benefits are obvious. But, until they are proven they remain unproven.

Once again, prove what? That the power meter measures power? Yep it does. The heart rate monitor measure heart rate and the stopwatch time. They all seem to work rather well. I know I would prefer to have all the data, rather than forsake one.

No, if you are only interested in HR measure HR. But, I can assure you I can reliably increase HR in most cyclists by simply making the aerodynamics worse. In this case the increase in HR could actually slow him down. Just as a high HR rower on the ergometer with poor technique in the boat can slow a boat down. If an athlete is focused on one aspect of their game to the exclusion of all others then even though you may help improve HR you might hurt their racing. People do not buy HRMs just to increase their HR (well, maybe some do) because they do not give medals to the rider with the most HR. People get these things to improve their racing. Either way, there is no evidence that having or using a HRM improves either HRM or racing over the use of alternative feedback methods of trying to accomplish the same end.

Fixed.

WOW! Amazing, the same argument could have been used against power meters.

 

[FrankDay]

So am I. Flying 250m, Match Sprints, Kilo, Team Pursuit, Individual Pursuit, Prologue time trials... or do these not count as cycling events?

Cool. Maybe we should also point out that some boat races (Oxford/Cambridge, Harvard/Yale) are a little longer than I specified. But the skills and needs of the two sports are much different. The rowing skill set is much smaller but that doesn't mean technique is not important, may make it more important.

No, I don't row. And I didn't say it doesn't matter but rather the focus is on power. And it seems to be a rather important one. I wonder why they were always being weighed and put on ergs for selection?

Ugh, yes you did. About the recovery, "it just happens" or words to that effect. And, of course, athletes tend to focus on the sexy stuff. Power is a way of showing off to their friends. But, as with most sports, one must be excellent in all aspects if one expects to be excellent overall. The rower who focuses on power to the exclusion of important other skills, just as the cyclist, cannot reach the highest levels. The champions pay attention to all aspects of the sport. Of course power is important but power in rowing, just as in cycling, without the other skills being excellent also will get you no where (or, at least, not very far). If all else is equal, only then does power dominate.

Once again, prove what? That the power meter measures power? Yep it does. The heart rate monitor measure heart rate and the stopwatch time. They all seem to work rather well. I know I would prefer to have all the data, rather than forsake one.

Well, if you would prefer to have more then get it. Why not get both an SRM and a PowerTap so you can actually measure chain losses? That is important information to know also, isn't it? But, other highly esteemed coaches and athletes prefer less data and eschew PM's. There is simply no data to suggest that one approach is better than the other when it comes to improving athletic performance.

WOW! Amazing, the same argument could have been used against power meters.

The same argument can be used against pretty much any training or racing tool since there simply is no good data to support claims of improved outcome for any of these devices.

 

[Tapeworm]

Ugh, yes you did. About the recovery, "it just happens" or words to that effect.

C'mon Frank, "quote", ain't hard:-

Strange, the rowers I know just focus on hitting target wattage. Seems like the return happens as a matter of course... a bit like cycling.

But, other highly esteemed coaches and athletes prefer less data and eschew PM's. There is simply no data to suggest that one approach is better than the other when it comes to improving athletic performance.

Who does?

The same argument can be used against pretty much any training or racing tool since there simply is no good data to support claims of improved outcome for any of these devices.

And there we have it folks. Don't train with anything.

 

[FrankDay]

Who does?

Brett Sutton, coach
Chrissie Wellington, athlete.

 

[FrankDay]

C'mon Frank, "quote", ain't hard:-

OK, "Seems like the return happens as a matter of course... a bit like cycling. "
Post 386 in this thread.

 

[Tapeworm]

Brett Sutton, coach
Chrissie Wellington, athlete.

That's it?

Not very comprehensive. Wanna see the list of who does?

 

[JA.Tri]

I feel for the OP

However there is nothing like a good foodfight so here is my OT addition (subtraction).

. Collect as much data as you can
. Notate that data you are going to disregard (somebody else might find it of use/importance)
. Change 1 (or as few as possible) variable(s) at a time

Heart Rate (HR) is great for measuring the stress placed upon the body (but not perfect)
Perceived Effort (PE) is also a useful measure of stress placed upon the body (more so with the person that has used it for some time)
Combining HR and PE gives an even better picture of the impact stressors are placing on the body
Power gives the actual output from the "stressed" body
Speed is a measure of the effective power delivered (all other factors being equal... yes body position is the elephant in the room).

So, the following MAY apply to PCranks and/or the Coapman pedaling technique, given the cyclist is proficient:

.power and therefore speed is increased at any given HR (given Coefficient of wind resistance not increased)
.power/torque delivered more evenly thru' pedal cycle (diminished fatigue and more effective propulsion on limited traction surfaces)
.cyclist uses more muscles/muscle fibres therefore less (muscle) fatigue (duration to exhaustion increases?)
.cyclist more comfortable (I have inferred this...I don't know whether this is asserted)
.decreased wind resistance (as I understand one of the asserted benefits of shorter cranks)

Given the above, the following conclusions drawn (which may not be equally applicable to both):

.FTP is increased and therefore speed increased
.speed also increased via decreased wind resistance
.Power/speed at any given HR/PE is increased therefore
.duration to exhaustion at any given power/speed is increased

Coapman asserts that the pedaling technique is effective and that this will be tested on new "Power meter" pedals becoming available. I accept, that until then, I am intrigued but questioning.

Frank has pointed to various studies that provide indications of PCranks providing improved outcomes for users. The difficulty I perceive with these studies is:

would the subjects have achieved similar outcomes devoting the same effort/intensity/time to other (possibly, but not necessarily, novel) methods? In saying this I am not seeking to denigrate. The PC may provide either an actual or placebo effect...and even a placebo effect is not to be sneezed at.
Whatever the case I would love to understand what is happening.

Right now:

. I accept that both Frank and Coapman are convinced of their methods and
. I understand both have their adherents

However for me, and I suspect others, more evidence of effectiveness is required.

Lastly, Although being OT I have no credit... a plea, can we stop the nit-picking on peripheral/trivial issues and deal with the central issue.

Ta, and the plea does not quarantine my post .