Study of Power meters.They are really same as HR monitors, but lot more expensive.

[oldborn]

New study of Power meters.They are really same as HRM, but lot more expensive.

There is another scientific evidence of how HR monitors are just same with PM. This time from Florida, it must be world wide conspiracy against them
Spending 2000+ bucks or spending 20 bucks are not same, but results in your fitness are just same, it is your choice.
Some people really should consider theirs ideas how we should train.
If you ask me same as Reebok claim that with their shoes you will get larger muscles, and guess what, they must pay for it. Does PM industrie have to pay? I just do not care, happy reading

There is still place for PM, but it should be carefully reconsidered without any money involved, I am just saying.

Here is the link: http://www.jssm.org/vol10/n3/12/v10n3-12text.php

Some parts:
Proponents of PM training (Allen and Coggan, 2006) often suggest that using a PM will result in a different type of training. Future research may be needed to operationalize these claims and evaluate them in controlled trials. At present, there is substantial support for interval training for endurance athletes and no evidence for the superiority of any single type of device in the implementation of interval training. Until additional studies are conducted to address the potential benefits of new types of training based on PM feedback, there remains no empirical evidence for the superiority of PM-based training.
KEY POINTS
Interval training improves performance for recreational cyclists as measure by changes in lactate threshold watts and 20km time trial time
No evidence of superiority of either heart monitor training and power meter training
Low cost heart rate monitors are equally capable as training devices

P.S. Are so called "scientific" guru coaches here (Alex not you) gonna accept this findings? Of course not, they just pick up things/scraps from science which gonna give them new clients and bank account get fat. I am just saying. Those people really do not care about science, do they?

 

[elapid]

Interesting paper. While I don't think the comparisons to PMs and Reebok are valid, I was surprised at the correlation between HR- and PM-based training methods. I have a PM and am still happy with my purchase, but studies like these may make me think twice about buying a PM if I were in the market.

The other fact this raises is that we do a lot of things where there are no scientific studies to support what we do. An example of this is being played out in another thread with Frank Day and Coach Fergie. Nutrition is another classic example. I would love to see a study on the effect of bike material on performance, because I personally doubt that steel, aluminium, titanium and different grades of carbon will make much difference to 95% of cyclists, but most of us are continually sucked in by what the pros ride and marketing.

 

[oldborn]

Well, if this not powerocide I do not know what is? Anyone can won on court with those claims: Cycling Power Meters - Significantly improve power efficiency Maybe I am not fair with Reebok comparasion, but that just me

http://www.increaseyourcyclingpower.com/cycling-power-meters-significantly-improve-power-efficiency.htm

Elapid do not get me wrong, PM itself is not evil witch, people and industrie behind is.

Maybe I gonna by Garmin Vector PM on great club discount let say sub 700 euros, but I will never expect to be faster like some coaches claim.

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Sounds like they are comparing examples of training by HR with training by power, and not looking into the concept of training with power.

Intervals are intervals. It's doing the work at the right levels that matter, not the device on the handlebar.

Train like a goose and the power meter will just record your goose like training. Train well with a HRM (or nothing) and you will improve. Although you will need to measure power to quantify improvement.

It is such a narrow view of the way power meters can aid in training smart, but never mind.

 

[Oldman]

Well, if this not powerocide I do not know what is? Anyone can won on court with those claims: Cycling Power Meters - Significantly improve power efficiency Maybe I am not fair with Reebok comparasion, but that just me

http://www.increaseyourcyclingpower.com/cycling-power-meters-significantly-improve-power-efficiency.htm

Elapid do not get me wrong, PM itself is not evil witch, people and industrie behind is.

Maybe I gonna by Garmin Vector PM on great club discount let say sub 700 euros, but I will never expect to be faster like some coaches claim.

The major advantage to PM as I've seen it is that riders pay better attention to how they train. Attention to a regulated program would bring most riders some improvement; particularly if someone else is inflicting a level of oversight. Aside from that, a HRM always seemed to accomplish the same thing but it's not the flavor of the moment.
Apparently powercranks are for one person....

 

[Tapeworm]

Paraphrasing a Buddhist proverb:-

Before power meter, 30 second, 5 minute, 2x20 minute intervals.

After power meter..... 30 second, 5 minute, 2x20 minute intervals.

 

[oldborn]

Sounds like they are comparing examples of training by HR with training by power, and not looking into the concept of training with power.

Intervals are intervals. It's doing the work at the right levels that matter, not the device on the handlebar.

Train like a goose and the power meter will just record your goose like training. Train well with a HRM (or nothing) and you will improve. Although you will need to measure power to quantify improvement.

It is such a narrow view of the way power meters can aid in training smart, but never mind.

Wait a minute Alex. I am not really buying "train with or train by power things"
Power meter (you are wright about this) just measure/record output, that is.
PM does not help us improve our cycling, that is.
So why we really need PM (let me quote that web site):

1.It teaches you more about yourself (I have shrink already)
2.It enhances your interaction with others coach & teammates (I am not that lonely)
3.It optimizes training (how it can optimizes training when HR just do the same thing)
4.Mine thought: It will not help us at all

I am not saying that PM can not give us some advantage (aerodynamics, less power more speed) but you must admit that some people just selling snake oil to the people

P.S. It is midnight here, so I am going to rest (this gonnna improve my cycling cos my TSS are high)

Stay well!

 

[sciguy]

Wait a minute Alex. I am not really buying "train with or train by power things"
Power meter (you are wright about this) just measure/record output, that is.
PM does not help us improve our cycling, that is.
So why we really need PM (let me quote that web site):

1.It teaches you more about yourself (I have shrink already)
2.It enhances your interaction with others coach & teammates (I am not that lonely)
3.It optimizes training (how it can optimizes training when HR just do the same thing)
4.Mine thought: It will not help us at all

I am not saying that PM can not give us some advantage (aerodynamics, less power more speed) but you must admit that some people just selling snake oil to the people

P.S. It is midnight here, so I am going to rest (this gonnna improve my cycling cos my TSS are high)

Stay well!

Just to be clear. the site you've linked to isn't selling power meters. The Ibike is a power estimator. Let's see a link to an actual power meter company making the claims you have mentioned.

Hugh

 

[oldborn]

Just to be clear. the site you've linked to isn't selling power meters. The Ibike is a power estimator. Let's see a link to an actual power meter company making the claims you have mentioned.

Hugh

IMHO it is same **** They are selling snake oil.
Happy reading from SRM itself: "Time trials are a great test of physical and mental strengthand one of the events where training with an SRM system can give you a real advantage. You can fine tune your training as well as your race performance"
http://www.srm.de/index.php/us/srm-in-action/training-with-srm/time-trial

You see any advantage?

P.S. Happy reading!

 

[elapid]

IMHO it is same **** They are selling snake oil.
Happy reading from SRM itself: "Time trials are a great test of physical and mental strengthand one of the events where training with an SRM system can give you a real advantage. You can fine tune your training as well as your race performance"
http://www.srm.de/index.php/us/srm-in-action/training-with-srm/time-trial

You see any advantage?

P.S. Happy reading!

While I am not doubting the veracity of the paper cited, I do find differences between PM advertising and Reebok stating that their shoes will increase muscle tone. I do think a PM is a great tool in a race because you can measure your performance much better than by HR, at least IMO. Maybe not for training based on the available evidence, but fine tuning definitely. This is nothing like saying that a PM will dramatically improve your results because you still need to get out on the bike and train. That's where PM marketing and Reebok are different.

 

[Tapeworm]

The fact that the study used power as a benchmark for determining which method of training is superior in the study says all you need to know about why power is a versatile tool.

 

[acoggan]

Sounds like they are comparing examples of training by HR with training by power, and not looking into the concept of training with power.

Precisely. Anybody who thinks that the point of using a powermeter is to better control your training intensity is barking up the wrong tree.

 

[acoggan]

Some parts:
Proponents of PM training (Allen and Coggan, 2006) often suggest that using a PM will result in a different type of training

Sounds like a letter-to-the-editor may be in order, as neither Hunter nor I have ever ascribed to this position.

 

[acoggan]

Okay, having now read the study, I have to say that I completely agree with Fergie's assessment on the wattage list (i.e., "Duh!"). That is, why in the world somebody would expect there to be any difference between groups in the magnitude of improvement when they essentially trained identically is completely beyond me.

 

[Rip:30]

Okay, having now read the study, I have to say that I completely agree with Fergie's assessment on the wattage list (i.e., "Duh!"). That is, why in the world somebody would expect there to be any difference between groups in the magnitude of improvement when they essentially trained identically is completely beyond me.

Right. The power of the power meter is that, later in time, after your body has or has not adapted its physiological capacity, you can then make an objective comparison between performances--even if the wind and weather have changed.

Duhhh... nothing snake oil about it, you just need to understand the really basic limitations and strengths. As always having HR and pwr is better than just one, because they measure different things and so together you have an expanded view of what is really happening.

 

[FrankDay]

Sounds like they are comparing examples of training by HR with training by power, and not looking into the concept of training with power.

Could you please tell us about this distinction such that someone could design a study to see in there is any advantage to training with power compared to training by the non-PM alternative. Many try to say the the HR is more precise as a feedback/dosing device compared to HR/PE. This study seems to say that isn't the case (or if it is that the improved precision doesn't make any outcome difference). So, how should a researcher design a study to look at the usefulness of the PM?

 

[oldborn]

Wait a minute. Those two groups were training with training devices, right?
PM is 2000$ training device, HRM is 20$ training device.

Those two groups trained indentically same, but the point is that one group monitor training protocol with 20$ device (useless by some) and still have same results. Precision? I doubt.

Results show us (despite you ignore them) that there is no advantage to using a PM to obtain increased performance and the concomitant physiological changes.

In simple HRM will do the job of PM I am just saying.

Let me quote again (I can do that 10 years from now) some web site:
Welcome to the home of power meters!
Helping to improve performances in time-trials, road races, triathlons, and duathlons, etc.
http://www.cyclepowermeters.com/

Yes they use PM (as HRM) to determine and check training load, but no one said that PM is not very precise in measuring some power output, right?
Or this was not aim of the study, remember.

Purpose was: "The purpose of the present study was to investigate the relative effectiveness of HR-based versus powermeter (PM) based interval training in recreational cyclists." period

So are PM really effective as HRM, yes they are both effective
Are PM effective in measuring aerodynamics, yes, but that was not purpose of study, right?

Do they really help, maybe, it is still to be seen, right. Those claims are same as Reebok case IMO.

Ibike, Powertap, SRM, Cyclepowermeters, Mc Donalds, I can not see any difference.
If someone claim that something gonna "improve, can give me real advantage" I am gonna beleive him

 

[oldborn]

Sounds like a letter-to-the-editor may be in order, as neither Hunter nor I have ever ascribed to this position.

Dr. Coggan I appreciate your work, but authors of study said that, not me

 

[acoggan]

Dr. Coggan I appreciate your work, but authors of study said that, not me

No, really?? And here I thought you were one of the authors of the paper.

(The above is sarcasm, BTW.)

 

[acoggan]

Purpose was: "The purpose of the present study was to investigate the relative effectiveness of HR-based versus powermeter (PM) based interval training in recreational cyclists." period

That may have been the stated purpose, but 1) it is a straw-man argument, and 2) wasn't actually tested.

 

[JayKosta]

Some points of interest, and question about the article -

PM training method was -
"Training intensity was gradually increased approximately 5-15% of
predetermined Lactate threshold per week"

HR training method was -
"Participants HR’s were monitored
and the power was adjusted to maintain their HR within
the lactate threshold HR during work intervals; in other
words, training resistance was constantly monitored and
adjusted to maintain the target HR"
---

It is necessary to have the data for Watts, HR, and PE for both groups during the interval training sessions.
That would show the correlation between Watts, HR, and PE for the 2 training methods.
Without this specific data, it is not possible to determine how the training methods compared to each other.

Perhaps the training methods WERE basically identical - which would have changed the title of the article to
"A method for training the same using HR or Power"

The results and conclusions of the article only apply to the specific training methods used in the test.
It does not address the issue of whether those training methods were optimal, or whether they would be useful for a longer training period.

Jay Kosta
Endwell NY USA

 

[elapid]

Sounds like a letter-to-the-editor may be in order, as neither Hunter nor I have ever ascribed to this position.

Well, that wouldn't be the first time. I know that you know that citing of other references in scientific publications doesn't mean you said this, it just means that you may have implied it at some stage in your publication. You can write your letter, but I doubt it will get published. Let us know if it does.

No, really?? And here I thought you were one of the authors of the paper.

(The above is sarcasm, BTW.)

When someone in a position of authority (based on knowledge of the subject in your case) resorts to this kind of response, especially to a lay person, I am immediately suspicious that you are feeling threatened and that there may be more to these results than you would like to admit. If you had replied with a rational, unemotional rebuttal, then your arguments would have more credence and we wouldn't be thinking you're such an insecure chump. Look at Jay Kosta and Rip:30 for well organized and explained criticisms of the paper and support for PMs.

 

[acoggan]

Well, that wouldn't be the first time. I know that you know that citing of other references in scientific publications doesn't mean you said this, it just means that you may have implied it at some stage in your publication. You can write your letter, but I doubt it will get published. Let us know if it does.

If it doesn't get published then the journal editor isn't doing his/her job properly. Quite simply, in science you can't put words in others' mouths just to support your straw-man argument...to do so unknowingly is making an important mistake, whereas to do so knowingly is unethical.

When someone in a position of authority (based on knowledge of the subject in your case) resorts to this kind of response, especially to a lay person, I am immediately suspicious that you are feeling threatened and that there may be more to these results than you would like to admit. If you had replied with a rational, unemotional rebuttal, then your arguments would have more credence and we wouldn't be thinking you're such an insecure chump. Look at Jay Kosta and Rip:30 for well organized and explained criticisms of the paper and support for PMs.

What "rational, unemotional rebuttal" can one make to such an obviously true (and hence completely irrelevant) statement??

EDIT: What I'm feeling is not threatened, but ****ed off...I hate it when people mis-reference the literature, especially stuff I've written. There is simply no excuse for such behavior.

 

[acoggan]

It is necessary to have the data for Watts, HR, and PE for both groups during the interval training sessions.

Perhaps the training methods WERE basically identical - which would have changed the title of the article to
"A method for training the same using HR or Power"

"Interval Training Power: Results indicated that Indexing training by a priori power (5-15 % increase of predetermined lactate threshold per week) vs. HR determined training load, showed that both groups increased their workload across sessions (F(1, 64) = 5.23, p < 0.001, eta2 = 0.25) , but there was no group by session interaction effect (F(1, 64) = 1.2, p +.3, eta2 = 0.07). There was also no group by session interaction for power across completed training sessions (F(6,78) = 162.42, p = 0. 390, eta2 = 0.07). These results suggest that the two training methods resulted in roughly equivalent workouts."

Of course, this issue is different from the fact that the subjects did not train using on-bike powermeters in the first place...

 

[JayKosta]

"Interval Training Power: Results indicated that Indexing training by a priori power (5-15 % increase of predetermined lactate threshold per week) vs. HR determined training load, showed that both groups increased their workload across sessions (F(1, 64) = 5.23, p < 0.001, eta2 = 0.25) , but there was no group by session interaction effect (F(1, 64) = 1.2, p +.3, eta2 = 0.07). There was also no group by session interaction for power across completed training sessions (F(6,78) = 162.42, p = 0. 390, eta2 = 0.07). These results suggest that the two training methods resulted in roughly equivalent workouts."
...

----------------------------------------
Thanks for that info - I missed it .... and IMO it IS critical.

Jay Kosta
Endwell NY USA