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

[acoggan]

any knowledgable coach or exercise physiologist should be able to [. . .] design and conduct a scientific study that shows the average Joe the benefits of a PM.

Agreed (but with emphasis on knowledgaeble).

This is up to the likes of you, Coach Fergie, and Andrew Coggan

Not me - I make my living off the NIH gravy train, and haven't done a study that used performance as an outcome variable since my dissertation research 25 y ago. (Although somewhat ironically, a colleague and I do have an R21 application in now for what is basically ergogenic aid research, albeit in a patient population.)

 

[FrankDay]

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

Hello Tapeworm,

I'm Jay (not Frank), but the obvious answer to this question is NO.

Now, back to you with a follow-on simple YES / NO question -
Can you explain WHY a "Vernier Calliper is superior to an electrocardiogram?, or vice versa.

Jay Kosta
Endwell NY USA

I suspect I could tell which was superior if we were also told what job we were trying to accomplish. Isn't that the issue here? Just why do we do all that training?

 

[FrankDay]

That's "training by power", something I've always argued against.

Are you trying to say that nowhere in your book are zones mentioned?

Just what is TSS anyhow?

Exactly how do you recommend a PM be used for training and racing (in the title of your book) that isn't a proxie for effort by the body or stress on the body?

 

[FrankDay]

Agreed (but with emphasis on knowledgaeble).

How do we know if a coach is knowledgeable or not? They agree with your philosophy? They have passed a test? Upon what science are any of them basing their "knowledge" of the PM that might make one more knowledgeable than another?

 

[FrankDay]

Not me - I make my living off the NIH gravy train, and haven't done a study that used performance as an outcome variable since my dissertation research 25 y ago.

But, sometime in the last 25 years didn't you write a book where improved performance was the supposed outcome?

 

[acoggan]

Are you trying to say that nowhere in your book are zones mentioned?

PPP #1: The training levels are descriptive, not prescriptive.

PPP #2: They're called levels and not zones for a reason.

Just what is TSS anyhow?

Not anything to do with the notion of zone-based training, that's for sure. In fact, quite the opposite, i.e., many a former zone-based heart rate monitor user has discovered that using TSS is quite liberating.

Exactly how do you recommend a PM be used for training and racing

I suggest that you start by reading the book - would you like me to send you a copy?

 

[acoggan]

How do we know if a coach is knowledgeable or not? They agree with your philosophy? They have passed a test? Upon what science are any of them basing their "knowledge" of the PM that might make one more knowledgeable than another?

I don't know about on the coaching end. On the scientific end, though, I would expect somebody to, say, have a terminal degree in the field of exercise physiology and have published a more than a few scientific papers in quality journals.

 

[acoggan]

But, sometime in the last 25 years didn't you write a book where improved performance was the supposed outcome?

That doesn't mean that I'm interested in studying performance for a living. Indeed, in point-of-fact I never have been (as should be evident from my publication history).

 

[FrankDay]

PPP #1: The training levels are descriptive, not prescriptive.

Descriptive of what? Different effort or stress levels on the body?

PPP #2: They're called levels and not zones for a reason.

So, you call them something different. What is the purpose of mentioning them at all?

Not anything to do with the notion of zone-based training, that's for sure. In fact, quite the opposite, i.e., many a former zone-based heart rate monitor user has discovered that using TSS is quite liberating.

Is TSS a measure of stress level on the body? Is power used as part of the equation to determine that stress? People may find the concept liberating but the fact remains that power per se has no direct usefulness here, it only helps the user exercise at what you consider to be optimum level for their body. If not, what is wrong with that construct?

I suggest that you start by reading the book - would you like me to send you a copy?

If you send one I will read it but it really doesn't matter because I see what those who read the book write about what they actually do. It isn't what you meant to say it is what you did say and how people interpret it and turn it into action. Most of the people out there are "training by power" and all you can do is come here and say "that is not what I meant".

Maybe you should write a new book entitled: "My last book, what you are doing isn't what I meant"

 

[FrankDay]

That doesn't mean that I'm interested in studying performance for a living. Indeed, in point-of-fact I never have been (as should be evident from my publication history).

But, you are perfectly willing to criticize those who do, especially if they come up with results with which you disagree.

 

[acoggan]

But, you are perfectly willing to criticize those who do

Of course - such is the nature of science.

 

[acoggan]

Descriptive of what? Different effort or stress levels on the body?

So, you call them something different. What is the purpose of mentioning them at all?

Is TSS a measure of stress level on the body? Is power used as part of the equation to determine that stress? People may find the concept liberating but the fact remains that power per se has no direct usefulness here, it only helps the user exercise at what you consider to be optimum level for their body. If not, what is wrong with that construct?

If you send one I will read it but it really doesn't matter because I see what those who read the book write about what they actually do. It isn't what you meant to say it is what you did say and how people interpret it and turn it into action. Most of the people out there are "training by power" and all you can do is come here and say "that is not what I meant".

Maybe you should write a new book entitled: "My last book, what you are doing isn't what I meant"

You can't blame me if some people don't "get it". (I mean, you could, if I were inconsistent in my comments, and/or I did a poor job of expressing my ideas. However, I don't think you can claim that either of those are true, e.g., I once had a well-established scientist with multiple NIH grants to his credit tell me that he wanted to use the chapter on power-based training that I wrote for USA Cycling to help teach his post-docs how to write clearly.)

As for your questions, they should be answered by reading our book - okay if I just send it to you via your company's address?

Anyway, speaking of grants, I must bow out now and go back to working on one...

 

[FrankDay]

I don't know about on the coaching end. On the scientific end, though, I would expect somebody to, say, have a terminal degree in the field of exercise physiology and have published a more than a few scientific papers in quality journals.

Well, I am glad we can agree that there is no way of knowing if a coach is knowledgeable. Would Stephen Cheung, PhD meet your criteria of a knowledgeable exercise physiologist? He was, I believe, the senior author of the Dixon study which you have highly criticized. He seems to fit your criteria for being knowledgeable in the field.

How do you feel about the authors of the PM studies?

 

[FrankDay]

As for your questions, they should be answered by reading our book - okay if I just send it to you via your company's address?

sure. I look forward to reading it.

I will be surprised if power is used for anything more than a proxie for effort or stress (unless doing aerodynamic testing). I hope to be surprised.

 

[oldborn]

PPP #1: The training levels are descriptive, not prescriptive.
PPP #2: They're called levels and not zones for a reason.

Well I do not want to look like some geek but Andrew:
P 52 from your book
"To help meet this demand, Andrew Coggan, coauthor of this book, developed a series of power based training levels or zones.

It is irelevant zones or levels, you would use zone term if HR industrie was not all over it. IMHO

I suggest that you start by reading the book - would you like me to send you a copy?

Please send it to me You see how big fan of you I am

 

[FrankDay]

Well I do not want to look like some geek but Andrew:
P 52 from your book
"To help meet this demand, Andrew Coggan, coauthor of this book, developed a series of power based training levels or zones.

Dr. Coggan can still think of himself as pure. He called them levels. It is his co-author who has referred to them as zones, misleading the reading public.

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

...it is not the negativity that is the main issue here...it is the double standard that is being is being applied here to the relative validity of PCs and PMs...

What double standard?

Studies consistently show use of PCs has no performance impact (which is their claim).

Studies demonstrate that PMs do what they say the do (i.e. measure power).

Help me understand what the double standard is.


The logical fallacy is in studying a training method (e.g. a course of intervals) or an intervention of some kind (e.g. change to diet/equipment/position etc) which results in a positive/negative/neutral outcome, then assign the reason for that outcome to tool used for measurement.

"The home made cabinet is all wonky, therefore it must have been the bad ruler used by the DIY enthusiast."

 

[FrankDay]

What double standard?

Studies consistently show use of PCs has no performance impact (which is their claim).

"The home made cabinet is all wonky, therefore it must have been the bad ruler used by the DIY enthusiast."

Well, if the studies that show "no performance impact" for the PC's haven't tested the tool per the optimum use instructions of the manufacturer is the demonstrated "failure" with the tool or the DIY enthusiast?

 

[Tapeworm]

I suspect I could tell which was superior if we were also told what job we were trying to accomplish. Isn't that the issue here? Just why do we do all that training?

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

Hello Tapeworm,

I'm Jay (not Frank), but the obvious answer to this question is NO.

Now, back to you with a follow-on simple YES / NO question -
Can you explain WHY a "Vernier Calliper is superior to an electrocardiogram?, or vice versa.
Jay Kosta
Endwell NY USA

I suspect I could tell which was superior if we were also told what job we were trying to accomplish. Isn't that the issue here? Just why do we do all that training?

Of course the answer there is no "superior" device. Comparing instruments which measure different metrics is an exercise in utter futility. Now if we were to compare like tool against like then there can be comparison. Comparing heart rate to power and which is "superior" is about as useful as comparing cadence to speed and trying to pick which is "superior".

And yet these threads constantly come up.

 

[FrankDay]

Of course the answer there is no "superior" device. Comparing instruments which measure different metrics is an exercise in utter futility. Now if we were to compare like tool against like then there can be comparison. Comparing heart rate to power and which is "superior" is about as useful as comparing cadence to speed and trying to pick which is "superior".

And yet these threads constantly come up.

Because, they are both being used to try to assess the effort or stress on the body for either determining proper training efforts or proper racing pacing. While they both measure different things they are both proxies for the same thing, therefore it is reasonable to compare them.

Edit: it is why I stated we need to know what is being measured before one can state which is superior. If we are measuring power the PM is superior. If we are measuring HR the HRM is superior. But, if we are using these tools as a proxy to measure effort or stress then we cannot say without comparison testing. That is what the current and previous study tried to do and it found no difference between these two measuring devices. So, you are right, the studies prove "there is no superior device" between these two for this purpose.

 

[Polyarmour]

Imagine all those silly pros wasting their money on powermeters when they could be using a $20 HR monitor. If only they knew what I have have discovered though it would cost them nothing. I have mounted a cup of coffee to my handlebars to monitor power output. In Zone 1 the coffee slops about a bit, Zone 2 you have to put the lid on and it spurts out the drinking spout about 50mm. Zone 3 things start to settle down with the post resonance high frequency vibration, you can take the lid off again. By Zone 4 the Coriolis Effect starts to take over and we have rotation occuring. In Zone 5 the Imperial Vortex forms and if your head gets too close you'll be sucked into another dimension. Now I just need to work out how to make money out of this. All ideas welcomed.

 

[CoachFergie]

You had me at coffee! PM me and I will arrange purchase of several units. It's a measure of work so won't conflict with my endorsement of Fixed Gear Training: as used by Cadel Evans, Poalo Bettini and Ivan Basso. As all us high performance specialists know it's not 1000s of little factors that make up the end result it's that one big thing that will give you a 40% gain!

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Imagine all those silly pros wasting their money on powermeters when they could be using a $20 HR monitor. If only they knew what I have have discovered though it would cost them nothing. I have mounted a cup of coffee to my handlebars to monitor power output. In Zone 1 the coffee slops about a bit, Zone 2 you have to put the lid on and it spurts out the drinking spout about 50mm. Zone 3 things start to settle down with the post resonance high frequency vibration, you can take the lid off again. By Zone 4 the Coriolis Effect starts to take over and we have rotation occuring. In Zone 5 the Imperial Vortex forms and if your head gets too close you'll be sucked into another dimension. Now I just need to work out how to make money out of this. All ideas welcomed.

I think your Zone 1-3 is ignoring the significance of Brownian motion.

 

[oldborn]

Aussies, that paper really hurts
Do not worry at all, I have heard Norwegians are going to publish more stuff.
No need for surfing you will get it on time.
Until then happy training with expensive and no more superior device than 20$ HRM

P.S. Poly where have you been mate?

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Aussies, that paper really hurts

Only if one wipes their backside with it.