For the "pedaling technique doesn't matter crowd"

[FrankDay]

Who cares, it's all about performance.

Efficiency is correlated to performance. But correlation does not imply causation.

Wattage causes performance. 95% of the time person with the highest power to weight or best power to frontal area wins the race.

Celebrate the red herrings all you like but the power meter is the tool you need to ensure you are training with appropriate overload and with specificity.

Of all those metrics for performance you mention - power, weight, and (effective) frontal area the power meter only measures one of those three (and, on top of that, there has been zero scientific evidence that actually measuring it during training or racing actually positively affects what one can do power-wise during a race).

The reason for this thread was to stimulate a discussion as to what elements of pedaling actually lead to improved power. You can't seem to get any more nuanced than what the power number actually is. Hopefully, the few remaining followers of this thread understand the difference so they might actually learn something.

 

[CoachFergie]

Of all those metrics for performance you mention - power, weight, and (effective) frontal area the power meter only measures one of those three (and, on top of that, there has been zero scientific evidence that actually measuring it during training or racing actually positively affects what one can do power-wise during a race).

Yes Frank and I have never claimed this.

The reason for this thread was to stimulate a discussion as to what elements of pedaling actually lead to improved power. You can't seem to get any more nuanced than what the power number actually is. Hopefully, the few remaining followers of this thread understand the difference so they might actually learn something.

Nice side stepping of the fact that several studies that found no improvement in power from being forced to change power application through the pedal stroke as Leirdal and Ettema's MSSE study appears to advocate.

Efficient maybe, more power no. I know which one wins bike races!

You keep celebrating those red herrings.

 

[FrankDay]

I know which one wins bike races!

So, we are all waiting to hear your pronouncement as to which one of the three is THE ONE which "wins bike races". And, of course, we would love to see what your evidence is to support your knowledge. And while you are at it you might clue us all in as to which bike races you are referring to, the 200 m sprint or RAAM or something else.

 

[CoachFergie]

Though one could make a strong argument that pacing plays a huge role in cycling being an aerobic sport (damn it).

Foster et al 2004, de Koning et al (1999) and any other studies show that pacing strategy plays a role in performance. What better metric to practice or learn proper pacing than using a power meter.

RPE? Too subjective.

HR? Influenced by other factors.

Stopwatch? Influenced by weather.

The majority of riders train their pacing by power even if most don't (and for safety reasons shouldn't) watch their power meter in the racing.

So, we are all waiting to hear your pronouncement as to which one of the three is THE ONE which "wins bike races". And, of course, we would love to see what your evidence is to support your knowledge. And while you are at it you might clue us all in as to which bike races you are referring to, the 200 m sprint or RAAM or something else.

Depends on the course as to whether power to weight or power to frontal area is the key factor. But the lightest person does not always win the race just as the most aero person does not always win the race. The person with the most power relative to weight and aerodynamics (which can be assessed with a power meter using the Chung protocol) will.

Most races Frank. Sure in RAAM metrics like CHO consumed and hours of sleep are correlated with performance but if there are no watts then the rest is irrelevant.

 

[FrankDay]

Yes Frank and I have never claimed this.



Nice side stepping of the fact that several studies that found no improvement in power from being forced to change power application through the pedal stroke as Leirdal and Ettema's MSSE study appears to advocate.

Efficient maybe, more power no. I know which one wins bike races!

One more thing that causes a slight chuckle here in the Day household. So, there have been no studies that show that using PowerCranks in training or racing improves performance AND there have been no studies that show that using a power meter in training or racing improves performance; what is an athlete to do? Why use anything? Which one costs less? In view of this lack of scientific support for either choice, why do you care?

 

[FrankDay]

Foster et al 2004, de Koning et al (1999) and any other studies show that pacing strategy plays a role in performance. What better metric to practice or learn proper pacing than using a power meter.

PROVE IT. Where is the study?

 

[CoachFergie]

PROVE IT. Where is the study?

Vogt et al 2007, study of Power, Cadence and Heart Rate during the Tour de France.

Ebert, and Lucia have run similar studies and found the same.

From Vogt et al (2007)

The most precise description of performance in cycling is the
mechanical power output that is produced by the cyclist to propel
the bike [2]. This variable can be measured directly and more
precisely on the bicycle using a mobile SRM crank powermeter
[6].

 

[oldborn]

It's not about how many watts you can put out, but how effectively you use them in a race. It's not always the strongest guy who wins but the one who conserves the most energy for the parts of the race that really count.
Wats do not won races, as powermeter is not accurate.

Some riders even do not know what wats are, or how to train for.

Leirdal and Ettema nothing advocate just point out possibility that DC may be (i say may be) energy-saving factor which lead us to produce less power but in more smart way.

Specificity of the overload are somehow becomes training Bible and drunking Russians Block&Periodization training legend. It has nothing to do with training with PC.

Cycling is then only sport on the world which has nothing to do with other funcionality of movement and action, which is apsurd.
There is no sport on the world where 100% of work is done performing just basic activity, without aids etc.

As for PC Frank and their usage, i still do not beleive, but you should be aware that power meter VS. PC debate is key.

Power meter producers and training theory based on it are key elements on accepting PC.

 

[FrankDay]

Vogt et al 2007, study of Power, Cadence and Heart Rate during the Tour de France.

Ebert, and Lucia have run similar studies and found the same.

From Vogt et al (2007)

I am sorry. I was looking for a study that actually shows that using a power meter in either training or for racing (or both) improves outcome over those who do not use this feedback device. I am aware of none. Further, I am aware of one study that has been completed (as part of a PhD thesis but has yet to be published) that showed there was no advantage to using a PM. I'll bet you can hardly wait for that!

 

[oldborn]

Further, I am aware of one study that has been completed (as part of a PhD thesis but has yet to be published) that showed there was no advantage to using a PM. I'll bet you can hardly wait for that!

SRM excell spredsheet geeks would not be happy with that.
But since then it is nice to have 2000 euros ripoff PM for sure

 

[FrankDay]

It's not about how many watts you can put out, but how effectively you use them in a race. It's not always the strongest guy who wins but the one who conserves the most energy for the parts of the race that really count.
Wats do not won races, as powermeter is not accurate.

Some riders even do not know what wats are, or how to train for.

Leirdal and Ettema nothing advocate just point out possibility that DC may be (i say may be) energy-saving factor which lead us to produce less power but in more smart way.

Specificity of the overload are somehow becomes training Bible and drunking Russians Block&Periodization training legend. It has nothing to do with training with PC.

Cycling is then only sport on the world which has nothing to do with other funcionality of movement and action, which is apsurd.
There is no sport on the world where 100% of work is done performing just basic activity, without aids etc.

As for PC Frank and their usage, i still do not beleive, but you should be aware that power meter VS. PC debate is key.

Power meter producers and training theory based on it are key elements on accepting PC.

I have no trouble with the concept that the ultimate goal of training with PC's is to increase the power of the athlete. If power isn't increased it is unlikely that PCs would improve performance because it is unlikely the PC's would improve frontal area in and of themselves. Although, if they simply improved efficiency, even without improving power, they might offer an advantage to the ultra-endurance athlete.

The problem comes from the mechanism of power/performance improvement. The proposed mechanism is different than the usual training benefit and requires more time to be appreciated. Therefore, a study that only lasts a few weeks is inadequate to "prove" the worth or the uselessness of the device when the manufacturer says it takes months to see the improvement.

 

[FrankDay]

SRM excell spredsheet geeks would not be happy with that.
But since then it is nice to have 2000 euros ripoff PM for sure

And, they think I have been selling snake oil! People like Fergie and Coggan (who wrote a book) have drunk the PM Kool-Aid big time.

PS, this post should keep the thread going awhile.

 

[oldborn]

I have no trouble with the concept that the ultimate goal of training with PC's is to increase the power of the athlete. If power isn't increased it is unlikely that PCs would improve frontal area in and of themselves although, if they simply improved efficiency without improving power, they might offer an advantage to the ultra-endurance events.

The problem comes from the mechanism of power/performance improvement. The proposed mechanism is different than the usual training benefit and requires more time to be appreciated. Therefore, a study that only lasts a few weeks is inadequate to "prove" the worth or the uselessness of the device when the manufacturer says it takes months to see the improvement.

That is a problem, first, studies are not structured as a training which lead us to race and do not measure other factors like i get drunk last night or i am tired.
They are boring spinnig classes with rats

Second neither training with PM would not set our PB on 40km TT for 5 or six weeks without fair amount of KM in our legs prior.

All i learn is that, there is no wrong way of training (if being a normal guy), there is only wrong way of putting those small pieces all together.

There is no such a things like Training Bible or study which gonna tell us to do so.

Ask Ivica and Janica Kostelić coach their father, they were starving and sleeping in tents beside track like juniors, while Austrians were sleeping in 5 star hotels. Was that in study **** no.
Results we know!

 

[oldborn]

And, they think I have been selling snake oil! People like Fergie and Coggan (who wrote a book) have drunk the PM Kool-Aid big time.

PS, this post should keep the thread going awhile.

Listen as a innocent/independent standbyer it is just intersting thing for me to observe things.

 

[CoachFergie]

I am sorry. I was looking for a study that actually shows that using a power meter in either training or for racing (or both) improves outcome over those who do not use this feedback device. I am aware of none. Further, I am aware of one study that has been completed (as part of a PhD thesis but has yet to be published) that showed there was no advantage to using a PM. I'll bet you can hardly wait for that!

Crikey Frank, you still making the mistake of assuming that a power meter will turn the pedals for you.

It's pretty simple, the better you pace yourself in an event the better you go. In a time trial it is pretty obvious and in a road race using tactics to make the other guy do more work than you.

I use the power meter to train people to be very specific with how they use their energy in any event whether it is a flying 200m (hitting the 200m line at goal power and sustaining it the whole distance), 4000m IP, getting up to goal average power and sustaining it the whole way, road time trial the same and in a road race to ensure that they don't use their finite energy levels to early in the event leaving them spent for the business end. This is the supply side of the equation.

The demand side of the equation is just as simple. Vogt, Ebert and others use power meter demands to teach us the demands of all types of track and road cycling. In the 1997 ACF L2 coaching course we learned from the Aussie MTB coach of the time who said they originally looked at heart rate data which was pretty constant like a time trial and trained their riders with lots of long steady state efforts. When they started using power meters they saw a lot more variability in the power during an event and changed the training to meet their new understanding of the demands of MTB events.

Now were is the research that shows changing the way one delivers power around the pedal stroke improves the ability to deliver power in a performance measuring of competitive cycling?

 

[FrankDay]

Crikey Frank, you still making the mistake of assuming that a power meter will turn the pedals for you.

It's pretty simple, the better you pace yourself in an event the better you go. In a time trial it is pretty obvious and in a road race using tactics to make the other guy do more work than you.

I use the power meter to train people to be very specific with how they use their energy in any event whether it is a flying 200m (hitting the 200m line at goal power and sustaining it the whole distance), 4000m IP, getting up to goal average power and sustaining it the whole way, road time trial the same and in a road race to ensure that they don't use their finite energy levels to early in the event leaving them spent for the business end. This is the supply side of the equation.

The demand side of the equation is just as simple. Vogt, Ebert and others use power meter demands to teach us the demands of all types of track and road cycling. In the 1997 ACF L2 coaching course we learned from the Aussie MTB coach of the time who said they originally looked at heart rate data which was pretty constant like a time trial and trained their riders with lots of long steady state efforts. When they started using power meters they saw a lot more variability in the power during an event and changed the training to meet their new understanding of the demands of MTB events.

Now were is the research that shows changing the way one delivers power around the pedal stroke improves the ability to deliver power in a performance measuring of competitive cycling?

Ugh, what you say seems to make a lot of sense. All I ask is where is the PROOF that what you say is actually true, that adding a PM into the racing or training equation improves results.

You keep bringing up independent cranks. There are actually a couple of studies that suggest that changing the way one pedals could actually influence pedaling efficiency even if proof that performance results are improved is still lacking. Contrast that to the fact that there are ZERO studies that show that using a PM in any fashion improves results over alternative methods and the one study that has been done is supposedly going to show a PM offers no benefit. From a scientific proof perspective, PC's look pretty good compared to the PM.

You drank the PM Kool-Aid without a shred of evidence (beyond anecdotal) that such a tool would offer any additional benefit to you or your athletes. Until you can present such evidence expect me to continue to point out to the world your continued hypocrisy.

Now can we get back to discussing the study that caused me to start this thread? A study, I might add, that suggests that changing the way one pedals could improve pedaling efficiency.

 

[CoachFergie]

The problem comes from the mechanism of power/performance improvement. The proposed mechanism is different than the usual training benefit and requires more time to be appreciated. Therefore, a study that only lasts a few weeks is inadequate to "prove" the worth or the uselessness of the device when the manufacturer says it takes months to see the improvement.

Long list of studies on performance (which use wattage as the metric of choice, funny how those that don't find a wattage increase resort back to efficiency or economy to get published) that show gains are made in very short time frames. As mentioned, and with SRM data to support, some gains are seen after one session. So when no significant gains in performance are seen after 5-6 weeks and after 11 whole years of Gimmickcranks being on the market there is no differentiation between those who use GCs and those who don't. Certainly not the 40% average improvement that the Frank claims riders will improve from Gimmickcrank use.

Even in my enfattened and poorly trained state 40% would make me a World Champion.

 

[CoachFergie]

And, they think I have been selling snake oil! People like Fergie and Coggan (who wrote a book) have drunk the PM Kool-Aid big time.

PS, this post should keep the thread going awhile.

Well isn't it surprising that academics like Andy and coaches like myself make a case for powermeter use at US$2000-$4000 a pop and every man and his dog, especially 95% of high performance cyclists use them.

You make your case for a product that is only US$800-$1000 and only a handful of people use them and most see no improvement and they end up on eBay.

 

[Tapeworm]

Any studies proving the effectiveness of stopwatches in training? How about tape measures?

 

[FrankDay]

Well isn't it surprising that academics like Andy and coaches like myself make a case for powermeter use at US$2000-$4000 a pop and every man and his dog, especially 95% of high performance cyclists use them.

You make your case for a product that is only US$800-$1000 and only a handful of people use them and most see no improvement and they end up on eBay.

So, you and Andy and many others have drunk the PM Kool-aid without a single shred of evidence to support your beliefs beyond anecdotal. Yet, you are derisive of others who think somewhat differently than you because they don't have scientific proof of what they believe or advocate? Just so everyone understands your position.

Now, again, can we get back to discussing the Leirdal paper.

 

[FrankDay]

Any studies proving the effectiveness of stopwatches in training? How about tape measures?

There are studies that suggest monitoring and controlling effort can affect outcome. What we are asking for are some studies that suggest type if effort feedback used makes a difference, e.g., that PM effort feedback is better than HR feedback, or PE (perceived exertion) feedback, or stopwatch feedback. Such studies simply don't exist and the number of current world champions who eschew use of PM's in both training and racing suggest there is unlikely any benefit to PM's, let alone even a small benefit.

 

[CoachFergie]

Ugh, what you say seems to make a lot of sense. All I ask is where is the PROOF that what you say is actually true, that adding a PM into the racing or training equation improves results.

That a PM does what it claims it does?

Gardner et al 2004
Wooles et al 2005
Hurst et al 2006
Abbiss et al 2009
Balmer et al 2000
Bertucci et al 2004
Bertucci et al 2005
Millet et al 2003
Kirkland et al 2008

And any performance test performed on a cyclist for the last 40 or so years.

That energy management in cycling in cycling is relevant to performance and is best measured in terms of power?

Crangley et al 2011
Smith 2001
Bailey et al 2011
Atkinson et al 2000
Atkinson et al 2006
Berg et al 2008
Chaffin et al 2008
Asbit et al 2009
Corbett et al 2009
Foster et al 2009
Mauger et al 2009
Tucker et al 2009 Review
Abiss et al 2010
Micklewright et al 2010 (talked with him about his research when he was in Chch in 2009)
Billaut et al 2011
de Koning et al 1999

Because watts are a measure of work and we all have a finite work capacity that we need to manage (pace).

Assessing the demands of a cycling event.

Staplefelt 2004
Vogt et al 2007
Earnest et al 2009
Lucia et al 2003
El Helou et al 2010
Ebert et al 2006
Rodriquez-Marroyo 2007
Wirnitzer et al 2008
Rehrer et al 2010 (Tour of Southland in NZ, Nancy is a good friend and discussed this in depth as is co author Ien Hellemans)

So three of the big challenges of coaching are...

* Knowing the demands of the event.
* Assessing the rider in relation to those demands
*Finding ways to teach the rider to meet those demands (training is practising what you intend to do on race day). A huge part of this is teaching riders how to pace their efforts in relation to the event.

There is no better means of determining the demands of an event that the power demands (we know it takes ~6.8 W/kg/hr to win the Tour and in fact anything higher is a now a red flag for those who wish to stamp out drug abuse in our sport). No better method of assessing a riders ability to meet those demands than power. When teaching a rider to pace themselves for a set distance nothing better than power to determine the appropriate level of overload and specificity of training.

As previously mentioned having coached 100s of riders over the last 19 years and having done close to 1000 bike set ups as a personal coach, running development programmes, working with physios and doctors and in bike stores I have never seen a rider and felt the need to change the way they pedal. Any issues with how someone pedalled were rectified by changing their position on the bike.

You keep bringing up independent cranks. There are actually a couple of studies that suggest that changing the way one pedals could actually influence pedaling efficiency even if proof that performance results are improved is still lacking.

Yawn.

Contrast that to the fact that there are ZERO studies that show that using a PM in any fashion improves results over alternative methods and the one study that has been done is supposedly going to show a PM offers no benefit. From a scientific proof perspective, PC's look pretty good compared to the PM.

Again you are expecting a measurement tool to improve performance. A set of scales doesn't make you lose or gain weight only measures whether you have.

You drank the PM Kool-Aid without a shred of evidence (beyond anecdotal) that such a tool would offer any additional benefit to you or your athletes. Until you can present such evidence expect me to continue to point out to the world your continued hypocrisy.

And you continue with this strawman argument.

Now can we get back to discussing the study that caused me to start this thread? A study, I might add, that suggests that changing the way one pedals could improve pedaling efficiency.

No, you clearly have a misunderstanding about the purpose of a power meter and I am here for you Frank, forever! I will not not give up on you till you get with the programme

 

[CoachFergie]

There are studies that suggest monitoring and controlling effort can affect outcome. What we are asking for are some studies that suggest type if effort feedback used makes a difference, e.g., that PM effort feedback is better than HR feedback, or PE (perceived exertion) feedback, or stopwatch feedback. Such studies simply don't exist and the number of current world champions who eschew use of PM's in both training and racing suggest there is unlikely any benefit to PM's, let alone even a small benefit.

Frank, using anecdotal evidence and demanding RCTs from us. The Shame

Have a read of Vogt et al 2007 and report back to the group.

 

[CoachFergie]

Any studies proving the effectiveness of stopwatches in training? How about tape measures?

Always an interesting one for anyone who coaches Track Cycling. For the majority of the season we rely on the stopwatch and only at Nationals with electronic timing do we realise just how far out we can be.

The NZ team use timing lights and overlay the watch data with high speed video data and SRM data. The next step is the use of GPS and accelerometers to determine how much extra ground they travel if they drift off the racing line. In the recent Women's World Champs Individual Pursuit final Sarah Hammer spent a lot of time off the racing line in the bends and probably covered more distance than Shanks but clearly had the better power to frontal area to take the Gold.

 

[Tapeworm]

There are studies that suggest monitoring and controlling effort can affect outcome. What we are asking for are some studies that suggest type if effort feedback used makes a difference, e.g., that PM effort feedback is better than HR feedback, or PE (perceived exertion) feedback, or stopwatch feedback. Such studies simply don't exist and the number of current world champions who eschew use of PM's in both training and racing suggest there is unlikely any benefit to PM's, let alone even a small benefit.

Which World Champions? I know a couple they all seem to be training with PMs. That aside my point about the other metrics is that they are a measure of effort, instantaneously and collectively. Why would you need a study to prove that? It's tool that measures the task at hand, without being effected by outside factors. The arguments for other metrics of effort have been done to death. Whether you use some all or none is irrelevant.

If you are doing your 5min efforts at X pace is the determiner for the adaptation. There are those (and their coaches) who like to know exactly what that effort is, there are other that can do this on RPE alone.

Of course I know you know all of this, it's just that you seem to spruik these arguments when the crank debate sours. Do you dislike PMs simply because they effectively disprove powercranks?