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

[CoachFergie]

I'm not Australian but that study only hurt from laughing so hard.

 

[oldborn]

Only if one wipes their backside with it.

I did not realize it hurts so much

 

[oldborn]

Ok folks casualties were taken and now we can enjoy for a while

I found Dave Lloyd coach http://www.davelloydcoaching.com/cycling-news-and-discussion/daves-exhaustive-tests-with-power-meters who was testing PM for 18 months, here is some thoughts from him. Alex please your comment.

"I REALLY don’t wish to appear totally negative towards Power meters. I can see some benefit from working with Power in very limited circumstances (especially on the Track… where it’s a level playing field and easier to interpret the results from a power meter!) I also tend to think they haven’t yet produced an “ideal” Power Meter, but I am now in the process of testing a Power Meter made in the USA and at last it is "sensibly" priced.. I have been testing it for 4 months and now I have 7 of my athletes trying it and am waiting for their feedback, which , along with my own results, we will see if it's worth bringing over as a Power Meter that works at a price that fits any pocket.....SO NEVER SAY NEVER !!!"

"Power Meters are a very expensive training tool and many coaches have vested interest in these tools as they sell them off their websites and therefore are biased towards them before they start even if they work or not ! I’m not naming names or trying to point the finger, or even being negative here, because I can see the reasons for this, naturally, we all have to make a living !! The very bottom line is that I do not believe Power is the “be all and end all” of an athlete’s progress. It also takes a lot longer to work with Power meters as you have to “download” each training session to your “Cycling Peaks” Software and then, put them into a format you can send to me and then send the information you have produced … I then have to come up with a progressive training schedule based on those sessions. Not that this should be a restriction if you have unlimited time, but I know that most of my athletes have better things to do than download all their sessions and inevitably play around on the Computer with those results for ages!! I also do not believe that Power to Weight Ratio is the be all and end all either. I have one particular athlete who has quite a low Power to Weight Ratio and beats athletes with MUCH higher Power to Weight.. I would prefer to look at the athlete in a Holistic way and “mentor” that athlete as well as prescribe training sessions… I am TOTALLY convinced that performance on the bike is in the range of 65% psychological and 35% physiological… If you require evidence, just look what I did with the likes of Wendy Houvenaghel, Carole Gandy, Andy Fenn (13 years old!), Carl Saint ... The list goes on and on.. and all with JUST heart rate and PROPER mentoring .. SURELY, the proof of the pudding etc..."


And we can not call this dude close minded, are we?

 

[FrankDay]

So, here is a graph of power, speed and HR data of a top IM athlete taken from the here. It is showing the relative amount of time at each power, etc.

Exactly what can be learned from this? Should he not have so much variation or should he have more? Or, did he do just right?

Or, any of the other analysis on this page. What is to be learned here that cannot be learned in another way that will improve future racing?

 

[CoachFergie]

The article provides a good summary of each performance and some of the vital background information like one year Faris had a stomach bug and how in some editions the fastest bike splits didn't feature in the top ten overall.

What alternative performance measure for the Ironman bike section would people propose?

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Ok folks casualties were taken and now we can enjoy for a while

I found Dave Lloyd coach http://www.davelloydcoaching.com/cycling-news-and-discussion/daves-exhaustive-tests-with-power-meters who was testing PM for 18 months, here is some thoughts from him. Alex please your comment.

"I REALLY don’t wish to appear totally negative towards Power meters. I can see some benefit from working with Power in very limited circumstances (especially on the Track… where it’s a level playing field and easier to interpret the results from a power meter!) I also tend to think they haven’t yet produced an “ideal” Power Meter, but I am now in the process of testing a Power Meter made in the USA and at last it is "sensibly" priced.. I have been testing it for 4 months and now I have 7 of my athletes trying it and am waiting for their feedback, which , along with my own results, we will see if it's worth bringing over as a Power Meter that works at a price that fits any pocket.....SO NEVER SAY NEVER !!!"

"Power Meters are a very expensive training tool and many coaches have vested interest in these tools as they sell them off their websites and therefore are biased towards them before they start even if they work or not ! I’m not naming names or trying to point the finger, or even being negative here, because I can see the reasons for this, naturally, we all have to make a living !! The very bottom line is that I do not believe Power is the “be all and end all” of an athlete’s progress. It also takes a lot longer to work with Power meters as you have to “download” each training session to your “Cycling Peaks” Software and then, put them into a format you can send to me and then send the information you have produced … I then have to come up with a progressive training schedule based on those sessions. Not that this should be a restriction if you have unlimited time, but I know that most of my athletes have better things to do than download all their sessions and inevitably play around on the Computer with those results for ages!! I also do not believe that Power to Weight Ratio is the be all and end all either. I have one particular athlete who has quite a low Power to Weight Ratio and beats athletes with MUCH higher Power to Weight.. I would prefer to look at the athlete in a Holistic way and “mentor” that athlete as well as prescribe training sessions… I am TOTALLY convinced that performance on the bike is in the range of 65% psychological and 35% physiological… If you require evidence, just look what I did with the likes of Wendy Houvenaghel, Carole Gandy, Andy Fenn (13 years old!), Carl Saint ... The list goes on and on.. and all with JUST heart rate and PROPER mentoring .. SURELY, the proof of the pudding etc..."


And we can not call this dude close minded, are we?

It just publicly acknowledges his own ignorance and/or inability to learn, that's all. I find it rather sad to be frank.

 

[CoachFergie]

It just publicly acknowledges his own ignorance and/or inability to learn, that's all. I find it rather sad to be frank.

Also confuses the difference between results and performances.

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

So, here is a graph of power, speed and HR data of a top IM athlete taken from the here. It is showing the relative amount of time at each power, etc.

Exactly what can be learned from this? Should he not have so much variation or should he have more? Or, did he do just right?

Or, any of the other analysis on this page. What is to be learned here that cannot be learned in another way that will improve future racing?

Well I'd suggest examining the data in other ways. That chart doesn't say much.

If you are asking about pacing and how the data can help assess that, well there are plenty of threads on ST where that's been discussed, and on which I and others like Rick Ashburn and Chris Whyte have commented on this. This one is an example but there are others:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/cgi-bin/gforum.cgi?post=2066900#2066900


But what I will say is I'm surprised someone had a 47C temperature. Must have left their PC out in the sun!

 

[FrankDay]

Well I'd suggest examining the data in other ways. That chart doesn't say much.

If you are asking about pacing and how the data can help assess that, well there are plenty of threads on ST where that's been discussed, and on which I and others like Rick Ashburn and Chris Whyte have commented on this. This one is an example but there are others:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/cgi-bin/gforum.cgi?post=2066900#2066900

Lots of opinions there as to what to do but it would be nice to know that any of it really makes a difference.

But what I will say is I'm surprised someone had a 47C temperature. Must have left their PC out in the sun!

I think you meant PM, not PC. Anyhow, hard to keep the PM out of the sun in Kona. Maybe he put black tape over the display to warm it as much as possible and used the heat to cook his food before intake to aid in digestion. Finally, a reason to put a PM on the bike I can believe in.

 

[CoachFergie]

Lots of opinions there as to what to do but it would be nice to know that any of it really makes a difference.

I think you meant PM, not PC. Anyhow, hard to keep the PM out of the sun in Kona. Maybe he put black tape over the display to warm it as much as possible and used the heat to cook his food before intake to aid in digestion. Finally, a reason to put a PM on the bike I can believe in.

PC = SRM Power Control.

Plenty of research on pacing out there. Several of those files indicate that riders started out too hard. Maybe they did start out too hard or the course dictated they ride like that.

 

[FrankDay]

Plenty of research on pacing out there. Several of those files indicate that riders started out too hard. Maybe they did start out too hard or the course dictated they ride like that.

But, they started out too hard despite them having a PM (otherwise we wouldn't have this data). If it is supposed to improve pacing why didn't it? Of course, what started this was a reference to a second study that found that a PM doesn't make any difference, at least as far as they studied.

 

[CoachFergie]

But, they started out too hard despite them having a PM (otherwise we wouldn't have this data). If it is supposed to improve pacing why didn't it? Of course, what started this was a reference to a second study that found that a PM doesn't make any difference, at least as far as they studied.

Again confusing measurement with performance.

We don't know if they were using the SRM for pacing like Wiggins at TT Worlds or whether they were recording data for comparison with previous efforts. We don't know if the course dictates a harder start (incline or headwinds) and whether the Pro Men had a harder time with fewer riders in proximity then the Women. The article suggests in one race that another riders sitting 7 metres back was saving 20-30 watts even with that gap.

That study is a joke. It draw's a conclusion about power meters in general from just one aspect of it's potential use. Can see why it was published in an online journal with lower credibility than the Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research.

 

[FrankDay]

Again confusing measurement with performance.

Confusing what with what? I thought you say PM's measure performance.

We don't know if they were using the SRM for pacing like Wiggins at TT Worlds or whether they were recording data for comparison with previous efforts. We don't know if the course dictates a harder start (incline or headwinds) and whether the Pro Men had a harder time with fewer riders in proximity then the Women.

The course profile of Kona is well known. If you can't tell from this power file whether it was the course or the pacing what good is the device? So, Training peaks is posting this stuff as an example and you are telling us you can't figure out what it all means. So, what good is the device? What does it tell you that the athlete didn't already know before he uploaded this data?

 

[CoachFergie]

Confusing what with what? I thought you say PM's measure performance.

That they do. Your confusion is suggesting that measuring performance will improve performance. We measure to confirm or disprove our training and racing experiments. On the day we choose our pacing not the power meter. The power meter will tell us if we made the right choice.

The course profile of Kona is well known. If you can't tell from this power file whether it was the course or the pacing what good is the device? So, Training peaks is posting this stuff as an example and you are telling us you can't figure out what it all means. So, what good is the device? What does it tell you that the athlete didn't already know before he uploaded this data?

The course profile may be well known but temperature, road surface, wind direction, wind speed, humidity, competition, training build up all change.

It's pretty clear what is happening in those races. What part would you like me and Alex to clarify for you?

 

[FrankDay]

That they do. Your confusion is suggesting that measuring performance will improve performance. We measure to confirm or disprove our training and racing experiments. On the day we choose our pacing not the power meter. The power meter will tell us if we made the right choice.

Won't your results compared to the competition also tell you that?

The course profile may be well known but temperature, road surface, wind direction, wind speed, humidity, competition, training build up all change.

And where do you get that data to plug into your analysis of the PM data?

It's pretty clear what is happening in those races. What part would you like me and Alex to clarify for you?

I would like for you to clarify what the PM is telling you about the race that the athlete on the bike doesn't already know, even without the PM data or that an outside observer doesn't know from analyzing the splits of the athlete and the competition.

 

[CoachFergie]

Won't your results compared to the competition also tell you that?

Compared to a previous year or event? Assumes they have not improved or become worse since that date.

And where do you get that data to plug into your analysis of the PM data?

Power is power, either you produce or you don't. The other variables could have an impact on your results but the power meter will measure your physical performance on the bike.

I would like for you to clarify what the PM is telling you about the race that the athlete on the bike doesn't already know, even without the PM data or that an outside observer doesn't know from analyzing the splits of the athlete and the competition.

It tells you the power. I thought the name Power Meter would make that pretty obvious.

Time measures the result but tells you nothing about how it was achieved.

 

[oldborn]

It just publicly acknowledges his own ignorance and/or inability to learn, that's all. I find it rather sad to be frank.

That is pretty much all I want to know, coach who does not sell PM is ignorant.
No Further Questions, Your Honor

 

[42x16ss]

Confusing what with what? I thought you say PM's measure performance.

The course profile of Kona is well known. If you can't tell from this power file whether it was the course or the pacing what good is the device? So, Training peaks is posting this stuff as an example and you are telling us you can't figure out what it all means. So, what good is the device? What does it tell you that the athlete didn't already know before he uploaded this data?

Frank, are you an engineer by any chance? Your lack of appreciation for the variables involved in bicycle racing - especially the human variable, the biggest and most important - is astounding.

When training and racing, feel does not tell you everything that you need to know. Even speed and heart rate does not tell you everthing you need to know if you are analysing your performance and looking to see if you have made gains/benefits.

Think of power as a constant, the measuring stick and all of your other data as variables. A rider's output power is the only variable not effected by conditions such as wind strength and direction, road quality, rain, drafting, gradient, the athlete's recovery/condition/exhaustion etc etc etc.

When training with power, you take the power measurements for the athlete during the session and then you analyse how their body performed when asked to produce that power figure. This is how you gain a closer insight to their performance gains and condition.

Then when racing, you have the data on the athlete and can use this to determine how much effort they can sustain for a given time without exceeding their abilities and blowing up. This is basic coaching!

How can you not see the value in this? If you can't then I strongly suspect that you have never raced a bike

Edit: Hamish/Alex, sorry if I oversimplified

 

[FrankDay]

Frank, are you an engineer by any chance? Your lack of appreciation for the variables involved in bicycle racing - especially the human variable, the biggest and most important - is astounding.

When training and racing, feel does not tell you everything that you need to know. Even speed and heart rate does not tell you everthing you need to know if you are analysing your performance and looking to see if you have made gains/benefits.

Think of power as a constant, the measuring stick and all of your other data as variables. A rider's output power is the only variable not effected by conditions such as wind strength and direction, road quality, rain, drafting, gradient, the athlete's recovery/condition/exhaustion etc etc etc.

When training with power, you take the power measurements for the athlete during the session and then you analyse how their body performed when asked to produce that power figure. This is how you gain a closer insight to their performance gains and condition.

Then when racing, you have the data on the athlete and can use this to determine how much effort they can sustain for a given time without exceeding their abilities and blowing up. This is basic coaching!

How can you not see the value in this? If you can't then I strongly suspect that you have never raced a bike

Edit: Hamish/Alex, sorry if I oversimplified

Hey, I understand the arguments. It all makes perfect sense. There is only one problem. No one has ever demonstrated that what you say makes any difference to outcome. Isn't that what this thread is all about.

 

[42x16ss]

Hey, I understand the arguments. It all makes perfect sense. There is only one problem. No one has ever demonstrated that what you say makes any difference to outcome. Isn't that what this thread is all about.

What if I said no one has ever demonstrated that HRM make any difference to outcome, yet you insist they do.

 

[oldborn]

What if I said no one has ever demonstrated that HRM make any difference to outcome, yet you insist they do.

Dude who told that anyway? That paper only suggets or claim that HRM and PM are equal in doing specific things. I am not talking or do not want talking here about how some device are awesome like PM guys, right?
And when paper comes out saying oposite thing, they just ignore it.

If you ask me and I told that before there is no superior things There is place for both.

 

[CoachFergie]

Edit: Hamish/Alex, sorry if I oversimplified

Very well said.

The Robinson Study was performed at threshold level and it is level's 1-4 where heart rate can serve a purpose for gauging intensity. That being said cardiac drift can throw that out.

The power meter earns it's keep for measuring training intensity when performing level 5 efforts and above. The Swart study showed that even with coaching the subjects failed to stick to the commonly prescribed method for performing max aerobic power efforts.

Cardiac lag means the heart rate takes longer to get into the appropriate zone than the actual effort. When doing very short MAP efforts the heart rate may not reach the training zone till the actual interval has ended.

Level 5 is the power at VO2max and one form of gauging if a true VO2max has been attained is a maximal heart rate then by definition heart rate training is pointless for Anaerobic Work Capacity training and Neuromuscular Training.

Then one likes to not only describe appropriate training zones but to accurately quantify the workloads performed in a session and in a micro/meso/macro cycle. For cycle racing where even the road cyclist performs a large volume of anaerobic work TRIMPS (based on time spent in heart rate zones) will not compare to power for a complete assessment of work performed.

Then of course a power meter can be used to test equipment and aerodynamics.

Quite laughable that a power meter is compared to a heart rate monitor based on only one aspect of it's function. As laughable as suggested a measurement device should improve performance. Does a speedometer power a car or does a set of scales cause people to lose weight?

 

[FrankDay]

What if I said no one has ever demonstrated that HRM make any difference to outcome, yet you insist they do.

I have insisted no such thing. I know of no evidence that HRM is superior to PE as an effort feedback tool. World Champ Conrad Stoltz has told me (the video is on my site) that he prefers PE to PM as a feedback tool) so that tool has its proponents also.

I am quite sure I have stated several times that I would like to see PE included in these studies also. What is clear though is that right now there is zero evidence to support the contention that training or racing is improved by incorporating a PM into the mix.

 

[CoachFergie]

I have insisted no such thing. I know of no evidence that HRM is superior to PE as an effort feedback tool. World Champ Conrad Stoltz has told me (the video is on my site) that he prefers PE to PM as a feedback tool) so that tool has its proponents also.

This Conrad Stoltz?

This Conrad Stoltz?

This Conrad Stoltz?

I’m really excited about this new way of training, focusing on maintaining a specific wattage and cadence makes for serious concentration. I noted a 15 beat higher heart rate at the same wattage when using Powercranks.

15 beats higher, sounds like those independent cranks are pretty inefficient if one's heart has to beat that much harder at the same workload.

Sounds like the Caveman evolved!

What is clear though is that right now there is zero evidence to support the contention that training or racing is improved by incorporating a PM into the mix.

Strawman argument, a power meter measures performance, it doesn't improve it. Can you provide a physiological rationale for how jumping on a set of scales will help cause someone to lose weight or how the numbers or needle on a speedometer contribute to the forward momentum of a car?

 

[42x16ss]

This Conrad Stoltz?

This Conrad Stoltz?

This Conrad Stoltz?



15 beats higher, sounds like those independent cranks are pretty inefficient if one's heart has to beat that much harder at the same workload.

Sounds like the Caveman evolved!



Strawman argument, a power meter measures performance, it doesn't improve it. Can you provide a physiological rationale for how jumping on a set of scales will help cause someone to lose weight or how the numbers or needle on a speedometer contribute to the forward momentum of a car?

That's it. By itself, power is nothing but another measurement. In the right hands it is the most reliable and effective data to structure your training around.

PE and HRM can't really be used to tell you to turn around, go home and recover but a power measurement sure can. Same goes for the other end of the spectrum. Are your sessions getting too easy? This is best and most easily confirmed with PM data. Press a button and it's there.

Having such easy access to this data gives you immediate feedback on what is working in your program, giving huge flexibility. That is where your performance increases come from - easy optimisation of your training plan.