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

[elapid]

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.



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.

Yeah. We've had a similar argument with another paper, haven't we?! But you were the one supporting unethical behaviour with the other paper.

 

[oldborn]

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.

Andy I would be ****sed off too You were ****ed off when Zulu study came up, then now that Florida paper came up.
How it should look study about PM and you would not get ****ed off?

P.S. If I were one of the authors of the paper, you will sell popcorns at Yankee stadium from now on
(Above is sarcasm, BTW.)

 

[LabMonkey]

The difference between training by HR or by/with power is a simple one

HR - tells you only about the 'aerobic' training stress

Power - tells you the 'total' (aerobic and anaerobic) training stress

That is a BIG difference

 

[acoggan]

Yeah. We've had a similar argument with another paper, haven't we?! But you were the one supporting unethical behaviour with the other paper.

??

I've never supported scientifically unethical behavior by anyone.

 

[FrankDay]

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 training methods were not identical but it surely can be argued they were equivalent. In view of these two studies it seems to me that the burden now falls to the PM advocates to come up with a study that demonstrates a method of using a PM in training/racing that is superior to what is typically/optimally done with a HRM. Until then, does it matter what the title of the paper is. The outcome is the same.

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

That is correct. But, as I note above, until one can come up with a protocol that demonstrates superiority one can only conclude from the scientific data that there is no training benefit to using a PM. That doesn't negate the superiority of a PM in helping determine aerodynamic drag but no HRM advocate claims that for the device.

I would have liked to have seen three groups to include a group using perceived exertion. I am not sure it has ever been shown using a HRM or PM is superior to using even PE

 

[FrankDay]

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.

I don't agree with or support Dr. Coggan very often but to me, a reference in a scientific paper only indicates that something in that paper supports the point the author is trying to make. It shouldn't imply that the author agrees with everything in the paper.

 

[FrankDay]

The difference between training by HR or by/with power is a simple one

HR - tells you only about the 'aerobic' training stress

Power - tells you the 'total' (aerobic and anaerobic) training stress

That is a BIG difference

Huh? Power simply gives one the effective mechanical output of the athlete. It is only related to the "total training stress" if one knows the efficiency.

Anyhow, I am still waiting for someone to give us a study design that would demonstrate this improved effectiveness for this product. All we have gotten so far is cries from the believers that these studies were flawed and inadequate. Of course, such criticism allows the believers to keep believing. Well, tell us what kind of study design you would expect to show off the product. Should be pretty simple in concept I would think (although it might be hard to carry off in reality).

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Anyhow, I am still waiting for someone to give us a study design that would demonstrate this improved effectiveness for this product. All we have gotten so far is cries from the believers that these studies were flawed and inadequate. Of course, such criticism allows the believers to keep believing. Well, tell us what kind of study design you would expect to show off the product. Should be pretty simple in concept I would think (although it might be hard to carry off in reality).

Because such a study design makes no sense and is based on the false premise that a power meter is something that it's not (i.e. a brain).

All that study proved is that putting a power meter on a bike does not automatically increase one's intelligence.

You either test:

1. that a power meter accurately measures power (which is what a power meter claims to do), or

2. what the impact of a training (or other) intervention of some kind is compared to a control (which has nothing to do with a power meter, save using one to objectively measure the outcome), or

3. whether you can obtain useful or better quality actionable information from a power meter that you cannot readily do so by other means (e.g. with the use of a HRM or other means) and/or how that information compares to current "gold standard" means of obtaining such information.

In the case of the latter, I can think of several, all of which can aid in making better decisions about the specific training and/or performance needs for any given individual and/or event (and which have been used to improve performance outcomes).

These include, inter alia:
- one's power profile (versus lab testing, can't do this with an HRM),
- aerodynamic assessment (versus wind tunnel testing, can't do with an HRM),
- rolling resistance checks (versus lab testing of RR, can't do this with an HRM),
- a clear understanding of actual race demands (oh wait, the power meter IS the gold standard, can't do this with an HRM),
- estimate of accumulated O2 deficit (vs lab testing, can't do this with an HRM),
- pacing analysis and quantify impact of alternative pacing strategies (not possible to quantify with an HRM),
- maximal force-velocity testing (vs lab testing - which uses power meter, definitely no way an HRM can do this)
- measurement of performance over time (power output IS the gold standard, a HRM does not measure performance),
- tracking of training loads (TSS vs TRIMP say)
- data on total energy demand (vs say energy guesstimate algorithms of bike computers/HRMs)

Each of these examples, which are attainable from power meter data, can positively influence decisions on training and performance outcomes. But only if one knows and understands them.

The power meter per se does not make decisions for you. That requires intelligent application of power meter data.

 

[oldborn]

Agree with Alex at some point, PM does not ride a bike.

But real question IMHO is: Are those desicions based on PM will really help us? I am not talking here about aerodynamics calculations or how PM is precise, but about desicions based on how really we are doing or how we are going to be.

2006. Sosenka UCI hour WR is just 259m better than Boardman 2000WR. If we are talking about PM advantages do not you agree that Sosenka dude would be far more better if using PM and all that things which PM provide?

Not to mention Boardman UCI best human record from 1996, it would not be hard task for any rider to break that record with today PM wisdom?
I am just saying

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Agree with Alex at some point, PM does not ride a bike.

Pithy Power Proverb: The power meter is a tool, not a bolt on motor - C. Mayhew

But real question IMHO is: Are those desicions based on PM will really help us? I am not talking here about aerodynamics calculations or how PM is precise, but about desicions based on how really we are doing or how we are going to be.

IMO, yes some of those decisions matter and make a difference.

Aero and rolling resistance choices are self evident.

As for others
e.g. when assessing the O2 deficit of riders in individual and team pursuits, one can make very sound judgments about what changes in training might best suit the individual, rather than going with generic "pursuit" type training schedule, or using the same training plan for all team members.

It also provides excellent insight into which riders are better suited to which position in a team or who should do longer/shorter turns, or at least will help make that assessment far more quickly than present method, which is essentially trial and error and a coach's intuition (not suggesting this be replaced, but it can back up a coach's decision with hard evidence or assist with a difficult choice).

I have also use the data to great effect in helping people learn to pace better, and to make those pacing improvements far more quickly than they might otherwise have done through trial and error.

As for managing/monitoring the training loads of an athlete, really the PM is superior and removes the guess work.

2006. Sosenka UCI hour WR is just 259m better than Boardman 2000WR. If we are talking about PM advantages do not you agree that Sosenka dude would be far more better if using PM and all that things which PM provide?

Not to mention Boardman UCI best human record from 1996, it would not be hard task for any rider to break that record with today PM wisdom?
I am just saying

Boardman and his coach Peter Keen used a power meter extensively in training and preparation for both record attempts.

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Note the SRM powercontrol under the saddle of Jack Bobridge's bike ridden during his Feb 2011 world record 4km pursuit of 4:10.534, breaking Boardman's 1996 "superman" position WR.

http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/latest/514834/bobridge-breaks-boardman-s-pursuit-record.html

 

[FrankDay]

2. what the impact of a training (or other) intervention of some kind is compared to a control (which has nothing to do with a power meter, save using one to objectively measure the outcome), or

This is the "easiest" of the bunch here to accomplish and the one that the vast majority of new users expect to receive from the purchase. It is also the aspect that I believe these two studies were trying to look at, comparing the HRM to the PM, even though you think they did so imperfectly. I would have like to have seen them also compare it (and the HRM) to perceived exertion (the dosing metric most used by the runners).

3. whether you can obtain useful or better quality actionable information from a power meter that you cannot readily do so by other means (e.g. with the use of a HRM or other means) and/or how that information compares to current "gold standard" means of obtaining such information.

In the case of the latter, I can think of several, all of which can aid in making better decisions about the specific training and/or performance needs for any given individual and/or event (and which have been used to improve performance outcomes).

These include, inter alia:
- one's power profile (versus lab testing, can't do this with an HRM),

Cool. Now wouldn't it be nice to have a study that showed that having that information made a real difference to the athlete compared to the alternative that an athlete might do.

- aerodynamic assessment (versus wind tunnel testing, can't do with an HRM),

Cool. Now wouldn't it be nice to have a study that showed that having that information made a real difference to the athlete compared to the alternative that an athlete might do.

- rolling resistance checks (versus lab testing of RR, can't do this with an HRM),

Cool. Now wouldn't it be nice to have a study that showed that having that information made a real difference to the athlete compared to the alternative that an athlete might do.

- a clear understanding of actual race demands (oh wait, the power meter IS the gold standard, can't do this with an HRM),

Cool. Now wouldn't it be nice to have a study that showed that having that information made a real difference to the athlete compared to the alternative that an athlete might do.

- estimate of accumulated O2 deficit (vs lab testing, can't do this with an HRM),

Can't do an "estimate" of this without a PM?. How about how long labored breathing lasts after exercise stops? Anyhow, either way, wouldn't it be nice to have a study that showed that having that information made a real difference to the athlete compared to the alternative that an athlete might do.

- pacing analysis and quantify impact of alternative pacing strategies (not possible to quantify with an HRM),

Cool. Now wouldn't it be nice to have a study that showed that having that information made a real difference to the athlete compared to the alternative that an athlete might do.

- maximal force-velocity testing (vs lab testing - which uses power meter, definitely no way an HRM can do this)

Cool. Now wouldn't it be nice to have a study that showed that having that information made a real difference to the athlete compared to the alternative that an athlete might do.

- measurement of performance over time (power output IS the gold standard, a HRM does not measure performance),

I guess you are like Fergie and believe that power is performance. I just happen to think power is just an important component to performance but not its equivalent. Either way, now wouldn't it be nice to have a study that showed that having that information made a real difference to the athlete compared to the alternative that an athlete might do.

- tracking of training loads (TSS vs TRIMP say)

Cool. Now wouldn't it be nice to have a study that showed that having that information made a real difference to the athlete compared to the alternative that an athlete might do.

- data on total energy demand (vs say energy guesstimate algorithms of bike computers/HRMs)

I thought the PM was a PM, not an energy consumed meter. Either way, wouldn't it be nice to have a study that showed that having that information made a real difference to the athlete compared to the alternative that an athlete might do.

Each of these examples, which are attainable from power meter data, can positively influence decisions on training and performance outcomes. But only if one knows and understands them.

Cool. Now wouldn't it be nice to have a study that showed that having each, any, or all of that information made a real difference to the athlete compared to the alternative that an athlete might do. Until that data exists, it is all hypothesis and conjecture.

The power meter per se does not make decisions for you. That requires intelligent application of power meter data.

Yes, it does. However, people have shown the ability to come to pretty sound decisions (becoming world champions) without using a PM so the question remains, can it be shown that the PM actually allows the smart PM user to perform better than the smart non-PM user?

Your arguments are all well-reasoned. Just accept the fact that from the perspective of athletic performance they have yet to be proven correct.

 

[FrankDay]

These include, inter alia:
- one's power profile (versus lab testing, can't do this with an HRM),
- aerodynamic assessment (versus wind tunnel testing, can't do with an HRM),
- rolling resistance checks (versus lab testing of RR, can't do this with an HRM),
- a clear understanding of actual race demands (oh wait, the power meter IS the gold standard, can't do this with an HRM),
- estimate of accumulated O2 deficit (vs lab testing, can't do this with an HRM),
- pacing analysis and quantify impact of alternative pacing strategies (not possible to quantify with an HRM),
- maximal force-velocity testing (vs lab testing - which uses power meter, definitely no way an HRM can do this)
- measurement of performance over time (power output IS the gold standard, a HRM does not measure performance),
- tracking of training loads (TSS vs TRIMP say)
- data on total energy demand (vs say energy guesstimate algorithms of bike computers/HRMs)

Each of these examples, which are attainable from power meter data, can positively influence decisions on training and performance outcomes. But only if one knows and understands them.

One more thing. Let's presume that you are correct, that each of the above can positively influence outcome beyond what can be done without that knowledge. The question still remains, how much improvement should be expected? An improvement of 0.001% in each one totaling an improvement of 0.01%, while an improvement, may not justify the cost of the device for most athletes. You folks are all in awe of what a wonderful device this is but I have never seen any of you quantify as to how wonderful it is. Of course, as soon as you make a "quantity" claim someone is going to ask you to prove it.

And, there is also a second question that remains unanswered. What is the minimum knowledge required to satisfy the requirement that one must "know and understand" the device to see the benefits. If the benefits come only if one knows and understands them you are not making a very strong argument for the average person to buy one, IMHO.

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

One more thing. Let's presume that you are correct, that each of the above can positively influence outcome beyond what can be done without that knowledge. The question still remains, how much improvement should be expected? An improvement of 0.001% in each one totaling an improvement of 0.01%, while an improvement, may not justify the cost of the device for most athletes. You folks are all in awe of what a wonderful device this is but I have never seen any of you quantify as to how wonderful it is. Of course, as soon as you make a "quantity" claim someone is going to ask you to prove it.

I made public an assessment (at a public seminar) of the benefits of the use of PM for a client's attempt on a masters hour record. It gained him over 2km and a record that will take some beating. I'd say that was pretty significant.

I was able to quantify the proportion of his improvement that came from more power, versus better pacing, versus aero improvements (and avoiding some poor choices, including use of sponsor's equipment in one instance). One can debate what proportion of each were down to using the power meter but in the case of pacing and aero, it's almost all of it (and was the difference between setting a new record and failing).

No, it's not presented as science. I'm a coach, not a scientist. But the data is there.

And, there is also a second question that remains unanswered. What is the minimum knowledge required to satisfy the requirement that one must "know and understand" the device to see the benefits. If the benefits come only if one knows and understands them you are not making a very strong argument for the average person to buy one, IMHO.

I think that to know and understand how to apply most of the bigger benefits, one needs only average intelligence or even less, but more importantly a desire to learn. It's not brain surgery (or rocket science).

For starters, there is public information about most of this contained within a relatively cheap book on the subject, as well as numerous freely available publications. There are forums available for people to interact and share knowledge and experience.

I would expect most coaches should to be able to grasp the concepts pretty well. Given that USA Cycling has a specific coaching accreditation on use of power in training, then it's certainly material that is teachable to most.

And to be fair, there are a number of people, myself included, that have tried to help with lots of publicly available information and materials.

But for those that don't want to invest too much of their brain space, they can engage someone (e.g. a coach) to do that for them. I have one client like that, he just wants to execute and let me do the thinking. But the majority want to learn, and that's a good thing as it enables you to progress to other areas of performance improvement.

I for one have never said everyone should use a power meter, even though I sell them. I walk through the issues of their use with anyone that cares to ask, so that they make wise choices. Some would be better off putting their money towards some good coaching.

 

[FrankDay]

I made public an assessment (at a public seminar) of the benefits of the use of PM for a client's attempt on a masters hour record. It gained him over 2km and a record that will take some beating. I'd say that was pretty significant.

I was able to quantify the proportion of his improvement that came from more power, versus better pacing, versus aero improvements (and avoiding some poor choices, including use of sponsor's equipment in one instance). One can debate what proportion of each were down to using the power meter but in the case of pacing and aero, it's almost all of it (and was the difference between setting a new record and failing).

No, it's not presented as science. I'm a coach, not a scientist. But the data is there.

That all sounds well and good but it is simply anecdote. I have people all the time who report way more than 2km/hr improvement that they attribute to use of the PowerCranks but you won't believe it unless I can prove it. You may very well believe the improvement your athlete saw was attributable to your use of the PM, but there is zero evidence that others will see the same benefit as you because you cannot prove it. That is the issue. You are perfectly willing to argue your anecdotal evidence to support your point but refuse to allow others to do the same when they are arguing something you don't believe in.

I think that to know and understand how to apply most of the bigger benefits, one needs only average intelligence or even less, but more importantly a desire to learn. It's not brain surgery (or rocket science).

For starters, there is public information about most of this contained within a relatively cheap book on the subject, as well as numerous freely available publications. There are forums available for people to interact and share knowledge and experience.

I would expect most coaches should to be able to grasp the concepts pretty well. Given that USA Cycling has a specific coaching accreditation on use of power in training, then it's certainly material that is teachable to most.

And to be fair, there are a number of people, myself included, that have tried to help with lots of publicly available information and materials.

But for those that don't want to invest too much of their brain space, they can engage someone (e.g. a coach) to do that for them. I have one client like that, he just wants to execute and let me do the thinking. But the majority want to learn, and that's a good thing as it enables you to progress to other areas of performance improvement.

I for one have never said everyone should use a power meter, even though I sell them. I walk through the issues of their use with anyone that cares to ask, so that they make wise choices. Some would be better off putting their money towards some good coaching.

While books have been written and forums devoted to the subject (perhaps evidence the knowledge necessary isn't so straight forward) there is simply no scientific evidence that having this knowledge (whatever it is) and utilizing it correctly (whatever that might be) makes any significant racing difference.

What you believe may be true but there is nothing more than anecdote to support your belief.

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

I'll also add - I jointly run an indoor training centre, which uses power measurement at the core of how the sessions are designed and run, and the tracking of power for clients, e.g. they get charts tracking their mean maximal power (average and normalised) over the course of their training. Some benefit from training designed using intelligent power based workload management principles. Others take advantage of being able to replicate actual race demands in training, even though their race might be on the other side of the planet. For many it has busted a number of myths about training.

They ask lots of questions, they begin to understand the whys, and see the benefits over what they have been doing, and most importantly, they perform better (both in how they feel when out riding, but also objectively measured by their sustainable power output).

These are people that are benefiting from sound training with power principles even though most don't use power measurement on their own bike, except for their regular sessions at our training centre.

We have in the vicinity of 200 clients. I would suggest that they have on average, average intelligence.

The vast majority "get it", some just take a little longer than others. Maybe 1% have struggled with the concepts.

Perhaps our client base is smarter than average, I can't really say, as intelligence testing is not a pre-selection criteria to train.

 

[FrankDay]

I'll also add - I jointly run an indoor training centre, which uses power measurement at the core of how the sessions are designed and run, and the tracking of power for clients, e.g. they get charts tracking their mean maximal power (average and normalised) over the course of their training. Some benefit from training designed using intelligent power based workload management principles. Others take advantage of being able to replicate actual race demands in training, even though their race might be on the other side of the planet. For many it has busted a number of myths about training.

They ask lots of questions, they begin to understand the whys, and see the benefits over what they have been doing, and most importantly, they perform better (both in how they feel when out riding, but also objectively measured by their sustainable power output).

These are people that are benefiting from sound training with power principles even though most don't use power measurement on their own bike, except for their regular sessions at our training centre.

We have in the vicinity of 200 clients. I would suggest that they have on average, average intelligence.

The vast majority "get it", some just take a little longer than others. Maybe 1% have struggled with the concepts.

Perhaps our client base is smarter than average, I can't really say, as intelligence testing is not a pre-selection criteria to train.

I have way more than 200 "clients" and the vast majority of them "get it". As I have been told over and over again, such stories and experience simply do not provide any proof of what I believe and tell others. Admit it, you are in the same boat with your beliefs.

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

I have way more than 200 "clients" and the vast majority of them "get it". As I have been told over and over again, such stories and experience simply do not provide any proof of what I believe and tell others. Admit it, you are in the same boat with your beliefs.

Not really, since I have the power data to demonstrate the impacts. Time and time again. No ifs or buts. I don't need to "believe" - the data is what it is.

 

[FrankDay]

Not really, since I have the power data to demonstrate the impacts. Time and time again. No ifs or buts. I don't need to "believe" - the data is what it is.

Let me get this straight. You believe that the fact that a power meter gives you power data that that information, by itself, is proof the improvements you are seeing are due to the use of the power meter? What about those PowerCranks users who have power data demonstrating the impact they see. Why isn't that proof as good for my product as you seem to think it is for yours?

Why is is so hard for you to admit it. There is no scientific proof of what you believe just as there is no scientific proof of what I believe. We are in the same boat until the studies are done.

 

[Tapeworm]

Let me get this straight. You believe that the fact that a power meter gives you power data that that information, by itself, is proof the improvements you are seeing are due to the use of the power meter? What about those PowerCranks users who have power data demonstrating the impact they see. Why isn't that proof as good for my product as you seem to think it is for yours?

Why is is so hard for you to admit it. There is no scientific proof of what you believe just as there is no scientific proof of what I believe. We are in the same boat until the studies are done.

Your deliberate misinterpretation of facts is awesome Frank. You should be a criminal defence lawyer with skills like these. Keep it up.

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Let me get this straight. You believe that the fact that a power meter gives you power data that that information, by itself, is proof the improvements you are seeing are due to the use of the power meter? What about those PowerCranks users who have power data demonstrating the impact they see. Why isn't that proof as good for my product as you seem to think it is for yours?

Why is is so hard for you to admit it. There is no scientific proof of what you believe just as there is no scientific proof of what I believe. We are in the same boat until the studies are done.

More strawmen.

The only boat you are in is the "SS Logical Fallacy". Like the Minnow, it's lost at sea, but you're not the Professor

 

[FrankDay]

Your deliberate misinterpretation of facts is awesome Frank. You should be a criminal defence lawyer with skills like these. Keep it up.

Huh? this is what he wrote: "Not really, since I have the power data to demonstrate the impacts (of the power meter)."

You tell me what the heck that means.

All a power meter is demonstrating is the impact of the training on the power. It does not demonstrate the impact of the power meter on the training.

 

[Tapeworm]

Huh? this is what he wrote: "Not really, since I have the power data to demonstrate the impacts (of the power meter)."

You tell me what the heck that means.

Gold. Except he didn't write the bit in brackets.

More spin, misinterpretation, obfuscation.

Practice with me Frank :- "It's clear ladies and gentlemen of the jury, from the facts presented here that power meters are a gimmick. All they do is record and monitor power! No science can prove that they are a performance enchanting device! Now compare this to the awesomeness of 100mm Powercranks which will improve your power, make you more aero...as proven! In studies! And by real life accounts! So let us consign the powermeter to the history books as an expensive toy with no proven scientific perfoance benefits whatsoever!"

(We shall, of course, ignore the fact that pretty much all sports studies use power as a metric and is also used to validate or dismiss training techniques or methodology.)

That about sum it up?

 

[FrankDay]

Gold. Except he didn't write the bit in brackets.

More spin, misinterpretation, obfuscation.

Practice with me Frank :- "It's clear ladies and gentlemen of the jury, from the facts presented here that power meters are a gimmick. All they do is record and monitor power! No science can prove that they are a performance enchanting device! Now compare this to the awesomeness of 100mm Powercranks which will improve your power, make you more aero...as proven! In studies! And by real life accounts! So let us consign the powermeter to the history books as an expensive toy with no proven scientific perfoance benefits whatsoever!"

(We shall, of course, ignore the fact that pretty much all sports studies use power as a metric and is also used to validate or dismiss training techniques or methodology.)

That about sum it up?

The fact that power is used as a metric in studies is not particularly good evidence that monitoring power in training offers additional usefulness towards increasing power from training. Power is indeed important. What is missing is the evidence that a PM is a useful tool for enhancing training to improve power. Show me some evidence of what you assert. The only two studies that have tried to look at this question have determined that using a PM offers no additional benefit.

 

[Tapeworm]

Wow, and it keeps going!

Wrong calling Frank, you'd make a lot more in law.

How can ANY measuring device enhance training?