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

[Tapeworm]

Last I looked, PM's do not record PB efforts, stop watches do.

Funny in oh-so-many ways. Being deliberately obtuse is an interesting talent, I'll have to adopt it someday.

Anyhow, the statement directed towards yourself that I was requesting some scientific support for was:

Which part of the statement requires scientific support?

1) A power meter does indeed measure power. I think Fergie has posted that study more than once for you.
2) A power meter, by virtue of the above can indeed record power which is a "personal best" for the athlete. HR would be useless for sprint efforts because of a) the lag from the effort and b) would only indicate what the HR did - no direct correlation to power produced. Remember our discussion before Frank? A power meter is the only device capable of recording power.

3) Overtraining is a vast topic but here's some reading as why overtraining is "A Bad Idea":-

http://books.google.com.au/books?hl...kKgxTI3uzTyPai0FPM0AtjRlA#v=onepage&q&f=false
http://www.nrcresearchpress.com/doi/abs/10.1139/H07-080


You could take blood lactate after each effort, but probably not as accurate or applicable to sprinters:-
http://www.springerlink.com/content/unm98pyw02ep2v0a/

 

[oldborn]

And now CycleOps is marketing PowerCal, "the world's first-ever power meter calculated from heart rate."

First time ever heard. Interesting algorithm they made.
Maybe it would be ok and help us to make training more better, who knows.
But for sure it will not put PM people out of business or make them to starve, so I do not really see any reason for aggressive behaviour

 

[oldborn]

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..

Maybe, it is fastest IMHO

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.

If I need to press button to see what I already know (dead tired, really feeling awesome etc), than I need some other help, not help from PM.
PM will only record watts, heart is our response to watts. I would listen my heart first (like some song)

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.

Maybe

 

[Tapeworm]

heart is our response to watts.

And therein is a problem - the heart responds to many things NOT just watts.

I wish I had the power file for my first mtb ride :- power 0, cadence 0, HR 175. speed 35kph

 

[FrankDay]

The reason I said I don't need scientific evidence for that comment is that it is a quite well known issue for sprinters in particular - if you meet one, ask them how they do their sub 1min efforts. They may use a PM, they may use PE, but it would be very surprising to find a successful elite road sprinter that bothered looking at their HR at that intensity.

I would be surprised if an athlete looked at anything for a sub-1 minute effort. Anyhow. here is the statement that elicited my comment.

How much precision is necessary as regards effort feedback to improve performance? That is the question we should really be asking.

Yep - as with most products it will be of most use to some people and less to some others. On the face of it I would say that this would be sufficient for recreational cyclists wishing to improve fitness, etc. For higher level road racers and in particular, sprinters, its not really as useful a product compared to a 'real' powermeter.

The question is what constitutes real evidence to support an opinion. I asked what scientific evidence you had to support your opinion and you told me you didn't need any evidence because most sprinters believe as you do.

Wow, I stand corrected, you really have NO idea at all do you? For a road sprinter to take that attitude they would need to kick off their sprint at exactly the same distance from the line, every single time. When was the last time anyone did THAT? They CAN however have a personal best power output for any given timerange.

redefinition of the discussion through focussing upon a minor triviality in 5..... 4..... 3..... 2....

Well, to me a personal best usually represents the best effort for a time-trial type race. If you want to consider a PB as the best power output ever achieved in a sprint, I guess that is another thing but it isn't what most would consider a PB, IMHO. In that case, I guess a PM is indeed the best device to measure that kind of PB.

 

[FrankDay]

Funny in oh-so-many ways. Being deliberately obtuse is an interesting talent, I'll have to adopt it someday.




Which part of the statement requires scientific support?

1) A power meter does indeed measure power. I think Fergie has posted that study more than once for you.
2) A power meter, by virtue of the above can indeed record power which is a "personal best" for the athlete.

Well, if you keep power as a PB I guess that is ok. It is not my idea as to how most athletes who race keep track of PB's. But, I guess if you have spent that kind of money you need something to help you to justify it. How do you compare this best with those who don't own a PM? How do you compare bests with those who weight differently, what does it all mean?

3) Overtraining is a vast topic but here's some reading as why overtraining is "A Bad Idea":-

http://books.google.com.au/books?hl...kKgxTI3uzTyPai0FPM0AtjRlA#v=onepage&q&f=false
http://www.nrcresearchpress.com/doi/abs/10.1139/H07-080


You could take blood lactate after each effort, but probably not as accurate or applicable to sprinters:-
http://www.springerlink.com/content/unm98pyw02ep2v0a/

How about simply monitoring resting HR. Works pretty well for the runners.

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Picked up a new Pithy Power Proverb today:

"Perhaps you haven't learnt the key thing about power meters...use them as a tool, and don't be a tool using them." - CEM

 

[FrankDay]

And therein is a problem - the heart responds to many things NOT just watts.

I wish I had the power file for my first mtb ride :- power 0, cadence 0, HR 175. speed 35kph

by my analysis it appears you were at or very near your limit at that time. Power certainly doesn't tell you much about this ride.

 

[Tapeworm]

by my analysis it appears you were at or very near your limit at that time. Power certainly doesn't tell you much about this ride.

100% wrong Frank. 100%. The power says everything - I didn't turn the pedals, it was a downhill run. Gee HR is useful isn't it?

 

[Tapeworm]

Well, if you keep power as a PB I guess that is ok. It is not my idea as to how most athletes who race keep track of PB's. But, I guess if you have spent that kind of money you need something to help you to justify it. How do you compare this best with those who don't own a PM? How do you compare bests with those who weight differently, what does it all mean?

Your (deliberate?) ignorance of training vs racing is staggering, bordering on comedic. You should write a training guide as to how you would monitor sprinters efforts on the track

How about simply monitoring resting HR. Works pretty well for the runners.

A bit late if you're already cooked.

 

[oldborn]

And therein is a problem - the heart responds to many things NOT just watts.

I wish I had the power file for my first mtb ride :- power 0, cadence 0, HR 175. speed 35kph

You are right, in that downhill case HR does not tell us much, but power also IMHO.
I watched firts race ever (Colorado or something with Armstrong involved in organization in late August) wich actually bring us power numbers on screen with speed numbers, it was nice to look those.

Anyway, from few km to go dudes hits cca (do not remember) 192 watts with over 60km/h per hour. How is that possible?
Simple, they were on o,5-1% descent, with really strong tailwind

I really can not see what power can show us in that case, and what coaches can learn from that IMHO either.

 

[Tapeworm]

You are right, in that downhill case HR does not tell us much, but power also IMHO.
I watched firts race ever (Colorado or something with Armstrong involved in organization in late August) wich actually bring us power numbers on screen with speed numbers, it was nice to look those.

Anyway, from few km to go dudes hits cca (do not remember) 192 watts with over 60km/h per hour. How is that possible?
Simple, they were on o,5-1% descent, with really strong tailwind

I really can not see what power can show us in that case, and what coaches can learn from that IMHO either.

It was just to highlight that HR can be very high due to physiological requirements that are not related to power output, hence why HR is not a reliable metric by itself.

 

[oldborn]

Martin, I'm starting to suspect this thread is brought to us by the letters _______

When somebody starts arguing with coaches and physiologists like Alex, Hamish and acoggan (if he's who I think he is) then I'm not too confident trivialities like logic and proven training methods are going to work...

And they are what? Holly Trinity itself, IMHO just 0,005% of coaches/scientist involved in PM industry whos opinion we can read or heard.
What about others?

I respect dr.Coggan work or Alex knowledge or fitness, but that does not mean that I agree with them, especially when guys has zero evidences for support their claims

So this forum is wonderful place to discuss, no matter if someone is gonna die for their belief or not. I am not ready to die for mine

I am just saying

 

[FrankDay]

Your (deliberate?) ignorance of training vs racing is staggering, bordering on comedic. You should write a training guide as to how you would monitor sprinters efforts on the track

Frank Day's training guide for monitoring sprinters on the track: Improved performance is best indicated by improved times (because time takes into account both power and aerodynamics).

There, done for you.

A bit late if you're already cooked.

I guess you don't understand how to monitor resting heart rate or what resting HR represents or really is. Did you read the link?

 

[FrankDay]

It was just to highlight that HR can be very high due to physiological requirements that are not related to power output, hence why HR is not a reliable metric by itself.

But, your data also shows speed is unrelated to power. Despite a power of zero on your first MTB ride, with a HR of close to 180, you were near "your limit" whether the reason was you were scared or every muscle in your body was tensed up.

Either way, I am not aware of any scientific evidence showing that using a HRM improves outcome over using simple PE as your effort feedback. AFAIK there is not any scientific evidence to support either of these tools to improve training or racing outcome.

 

[acoggan]

Frank Day's training guide for monitoring sprinters on the track: Improved performance is best indicated by improved times (because time takes into account both power and aerodynamics).

But not, unfortunately, differences in environmental conditions, rolling resistance, distribution of effort w/in the sprint (i.e., pacing), etc. This is why even those who train and race on indoor tracks almost exclusively find benefit in using a powermeter (just ask, e.g., Andy Sparks).

(Of course, another problem with your idea is the imprecision of hand-timing, and the fact that electronic timing is not routinely available...but that's really another story.)

 

[FrankDay]

But not, unfortunately, differences in environmental conditions, rolling resistance, distribution of effort w/in the sprint (i.e., pacing), etc. This is why even those who train and race on indoor tracks almost exclusively find benefit in using a powermeter (just ask, e.g., Andy Sparks).

Dr. Coggan. As a scientist you should know that just because someone uses something is not good evidence it actually does them any good. The "benefit" to using a power meter has yet to be demonstrated.

(Of course, another problem with your idea is the imprecision of hand-timing, and the fact that electronic timing is not routinely available...but that's really another story.)

Imprecision of hand timing? My $20 speedometer will give my my max speed for each effort and if I want accurate timing all I need do is video my efforts and count frames. Not quite as accurate as electronic timing but pretty good and easily available to almost everyone

 

[acoggan]

Dr. Coggan. As a scientist you should know that just because someone uses something is not good evidence it actually does them any good.

No, but when naysayers who coach world champions/world record holders become believers, I think it does say something.

if I want accurate timing all I need do is video my efforts and count frames. Not quite as accurate as electronic timing but pretty good and easily available to almost everyone

Still more tedious/less precise (in determining the athlete's actual performance, for the reasons previously mentioned) than simply measuring their power...

 

[acoggan]

if I want accurate timing all I need do is video my efforts and count frames. Not quite as accurate as electronic timing but pretty good and easily available to almost everyone

BTW: I don't know whether such technology is "easily available to almost everyone", but USA Cycling frequently videos training sessions and important races, and shares the videos via the web on a private Dartfish "tv channel". You can occasionally learn things by viewing such videos, but they still use powermeters (and rely on me to help interpret the data).

 

[FrankDay]

No, but when naysayers who coach world champions/world record holders become believers, I think it does say something.

You don't seem to think that says anything about my product. Why would it say any more about something you believe in?

Still more tedious/less precise (in determining the athlete's actual performance, for the reasons previously mentioned) than simply measuring their power...

Really? I see you are making the same assumption that Fergie does, equating power with performance. To me, performance includes additional aspects that a PM doesn't measure. PM's measure power. It is not clear to me nor has it been demonstrated it is the best measure of racing performance. It may very well be but it certainly hasn't been demonstrated.

 

[FrankDay]

BTW: I don't know whether such technology is "easily available to almost everyone", but USA Cycling frequently videos training sessions and important races, and shares the videos via the web on a private Dartfish "tv channel". You can occasionally learn things by viewing such videos, but they still use powermeters (and rely on me to help interpret the data).

What does it say about the PM that USA Cycling has to ask you to help them interpret their PM data? Now there is a tool that seems it might be especially useful to the average cyclist.

 

[acoggan]

You don't seem to think that says anything about my product.

I'm not aware of anyone who coaches world champion/world record holding track cyclists who advocates use of your product. OTOH, those that employ powermeters are legion.

I see you are making the same assumption that Fergie does, equating power with performance.

Power IS the athlete's performance as an "engine". Yes, how they rank compared to others and/or against a watch is the basis for handing out medals/jerseys/contracts, but the variability in performance in that sense is sufficiently large that it is often difficult to determine cause-and-effect. That's where a powermeter can be quite handy.

 

[acoggan]

What does it say about the PM that USA Cycling has to ask you to help them interpret their PM data?

A more relevant question might be, what does it say about USA Cycling (or Sarah Hammer's coach, or Amber Neben's coach, or Kristin Armstrong's coach, or...)?

 

[FrankDay]

I'm not aware of anyone who coaches world champions/world record holding track cyclists who advocate use of your product.

Then, you haven't been paying attention.

OTOH, those that employ powermeters are legion.

and that proves?

Power IS the athlete's performance as an "engine". Yes, how they rank compared to others and/or against a watch is the basis for handing out medals/jerseys/contracts, but the variability in performance in that sense is sufficiently large that it is often difficult to determine cause-and-effect.

I guess we can agree to disagree but I think most believe that how riders rank against each other in races is the best measure of performance. Who cares what their power is/was. For power to be the best measure of performance, aerodynamics and other aspects of riding would have to be insignificant. Are you saying power completely trumps aerodynamics in determining race outcome? Just because a PM makes it easy to measure one aspect of racing performance doesn't suddenly make that aspect more important than the others.

 

[FrankDay]

A more relevant question might be, what does it say about USA Cycling (or Sarah Hammer's coach, or Amber Neben's coach, or Kristin Armstrong's coach, or...)?

Haven't they read your book? This stuff is supposed to be so easy that anyone can benefit from it. If power is such a direct measure of performance exactly what is the difficulty in the interpretation of the data?