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

[Oldman]

These guys now have two rooms at Hotel Dysfunctionelle? Why don't they both admit they are taking money from guys that should just be riding with people faster than them. It's much cheaper and you don't have to go to a training studio.

 

[Martin318is]

Most of the people in this conversation agree that a HRM is a good training tool (many people call them essential). When the early wireless HRMs came onto the market in the early 80s they were horrendously expensive and as more competitors have come into the market the prices have come down. But - I am not aware of any serious cyclist who uses a HRM that was less than $100. in fact, most appear to have spent between $200 and $600.

Meanwhile, the price of a powermeter is repeatedly being referred to as $2,000. Crank based PMs can ben expensive but it is easy to get access to them for as little as $1,200. Bear in mind that this price INCLUDES a crankset. If you were riding Sram force for instance, this means you are paying roughly $500 for the PM on an equivalent crankset.
Also, it is easy to get access to a powertap built into a wheel for under $1,000. Bearing in mind you get a wheel with this, this option is less than $800.

There are roughly 8 different PM systems coming onto the market in the next 12 months.

The point I am raising is, the price of powermeters is coming down and is likely to come down a LOT more. Arguing about their cost has no relevance in the discussion regarding whether they can be used as part of a training plan to improve performance.

 

[Martin318is]

These guys now have two rooms at Hotel Dysfunctionelle? Why don't they both admit they are taking money from guys that should just be riding with people faster than them. It's much cheaper and you don't have to go to a training studio.

Who goes to a training studio? There is more than enough information out there for people to train with power and manage it themselves.

 

[FrankDay]

Most of the people in this conversation agree that a HRM is a good training tool (many people call them essential). When the early wireless HRMs came onto the market in the early 80s they were horrendously expensive and as more competitors have come into the market the prices have come down. But - I am not aware of any serious cyclist who uses a HRM that was less than $100. in fact, most appear to have spent between $200 and $600.

Meanwhile, the price of a powermeter is repeatedly being referred to as $2,000. Crank based PMs can ben expensive but it is easy to get access to them for as little as $1,200. Bear in mind that this price INCLUDES a crankset. If you were riding Sram force for instance, this means you are paying roughly $500 for the PM on an equivalent crankset.
Also, it is easy to get access to a powertap built into a wheel for under $1,000. Bearing in mind you get a wheel with this, this option is less than $800.

There are roughly 8 different PM systems coming onto the market in the next 12 months.

The point I am raising is, the price of powermeters is coming down and is likely to come down a LOT more. Arguing about their cost has no relevance in the discussion regarding whether they can be used as part of a training plan to improve performance.

Cost only comes into the discussion if there is some evidence that the device actually adds some benefit, then one can do a cost benefit analysis. If there is no benefit then the cost benefit is always zero. That may actually be the case with HRM also, as I am not aware of any study showing HRM feedback is superior to using perceived exertion. Is there one, anyone?

 

[FrankDay]

How can ANY measuring device enhance training?

Then why, as an athlete, get it?

 

[Tapeworm]

Because it measures power.

Why get a speed sensor, why get a heart rate monitor, why get a cadence sensor etc etc? Because they measure what they are supposed to.

I'm yet to see why you would get 100mm cranks however.

 

[Martin318is]

Cost only comes into the discussion if there is some evidence that the device actually adds some benefit, then one can do a cost benefit analysis. If there is no benefit then the cost benefit is always zero. That may actually be the case with HRM also, as I am not aware of any study showing HRM feedback is superior to using perceived exertion. Is there one, anyone?

Just raising the point given that the OP felt moved to include it in the thread title and continues to bring it up as 'fact' regularly.

 

[FrankDay]

Because it measures power.

Why get a speed sensor, why get a heart rate monitor, why get a cadence sensor etc etc? Because they measure what they are supposed to.

I'm yet to see why you would get 100mm cranks however.

This thread is not about 100mm cranks. This thread is about PM's. Anyhow, if your interest is in obtaining a number, then go for it. but, my guess is that most people who are spending the dollars involved are somehow expecting more than that.

Seems to me that, if that were the case Coggan's book could have been two sentences long. "Look at number in awe. Sorry, that's all."

 

[Tapeworm]

Yes Frank, as has been stated before, and what you deliberately try to twist, is that a power meter does indeed collect numbers.

The PM does no turn the pedals, or make it easier for you to train harder, or for longer etc. The efforts in training to yield adaptation does not change.

I'll ask you some very simple questions (which in the past you seem to struggle with but I shall continue).

Do you, Frank, agree that one metric that can be measured from a person turning pedals on the bike is power?

Do you agree that, with all other things being equal, a person who produces more power will go faster than the person producing less power?

Do you agree that heart rate measured can be influenced by other factors OTHER than as a direct result of someone pedaling their bike?

Do you agree that, with all other things being equal, that a rider who is producing more power now than 6 months ago has shown improvement in power production?



I now expect a lengthy discourse of irrelevant "fact" rather than the questions being answered. Especially as they are closed questions.

 

[FrankDay]

Yes Frank, as has been stated before, and what you deliberately try to twist, is that a power meter does indeed collect numbers.

The PM does no turn the pedals, or make it easier for you to train harder, or for longer etc. The efforts in training to yield adaptation does not change.

I'll ask you some very simple questions (which in the past you seem to struggle with but I shall continue).

Do you, Frank, agree that one metric that can be measured from a person turning pedals on the bike is power?

Do you agree that, with all other things being equal, a person who produces more power will go faster than the person producing less power?

Do you agree that heart rate measured can be influenced by other factors OTHER than as a direct result of someone pedaling their bike?

Do you agree that, with all other things being equal, that a rider who is producing more power now than 6 months ago has shown improvement in power production?



I now expect a lengthy discourse of irrelevant "fact" rather than the questions being answered. Especially as they are closed questions.

Of course I agree with all that stuff. However, that is not evidence that using a PM as a training device is superior to any other effort feedback device. What you have presented is an argument as to why it should be better. But, the evidence from the studies show that what we would expect from your argument does not occur in practice.

 

[Martin318is]

This thread is not about 100mm cranks. This thread is about PM's. Anyhow, if your interest is in obtaining a number, then go for it. but, my guess is that most people who are spending the dollars involved are somehow expecting more than that.

Seems to me that, if that were the case Coggan's book could have been two sentences long. "Look at number in awe. Sorry, that's all."

I am yet to meet (or see comments online from) a SINGLE person who thinks like that. Every athlete I know who has shown interest in Powermeters has also been researching the techniques of training based upon power - an avenue that is opened up by having the ability to view and record power.

There are stupid people in all walks of life so it is entirely possible that one or two exist that think the way you want us to believe they do but my experience does not match your guess.

 

[FrankDay]

I am yet to meet (or see comments online from) a SINGLE person who thinks like that. Every athlete I know who has shown interest in Powermeters has also been researching the techniques of training based upon power - an avenue that is opened up by having the ability to view and record power.

Are you telling us that all of those athletes you have met who are "researching" training based upon power are doing so without any expectation that such training would result in an improved outcome over what they are currently doing? This despite what most would consider a fairly substantial cost. Really?

 

[FrankDay]

Just raising the point given that the OP felt moved to include it in the thread title and continues to bring it up as 'fact' regularly.

Power meters are not free even though the cost is coming down some, as you pointed out. However, if there is zero benefit to having the device the cost/benefit analysis doesn't look good regardless of how low the price has become. That is why cost should not be part of the discussion until one can show there is some actual benefit to the device. Otherwise, the purchaser is taking a leap of faith hoping that their analysis that there should be benefit is correct before the scientists prove them, hopefully, correct. (although recent history isn't looking too good here for the PM) That is what the purchasers of my product do. That is what the purchasers of a PM do. The same for many other products. You pay your money and you take your chances.

 

[Martin318is]

Are you telling us that all of those athletes you have met who are "researching" training based upon power are doing so without any expectation that such training would result in an improved outcome over what they are currently doing? This despite what most would consider a fairly substantial cost. Really?

No, Frank, I am not telling you that. Stop trolling.

CLEARLY if you are going to buy a tool, you are going to get advice from experts on how best to use it. The expectation is NOT that the powermeter is going to make the rider perform better. You know that and you keep bringing it up.

A Heartrate monitor does not improve performance - training with knowledge of heartrate does.

Perceived Exertion does not improve performance - training with knowledge of perceived exertion does.

Likewise, a powermeter does not improve performance - training with knowledge of training with power does

 

[Martin318is]

Power meters are not free even though the cost is coming down some, as you pointed out. However, if there is zero benefit to having the device the cost/benefit analysis doesn't look good regardless of how low the price has become. That is why cost should not be part of the discussion until one can show there is some actual benefit to the device. Otherwise, the purchaser is taking a leap of faith hoping that their analysis that there should be benefit is correct before the scientists prove them, hopefully, correct. (although recent history isn't looking too good here for the PM) That is what the purchasers of my product do. That is what the purchasers of a PM do. The same for many other products. You pay your money and you take your chances.

If you don't want the thread to be polluted with comparisons of your product vs powermeters - stop reintroducing it to the conversation.

 

[FrankDay]

If you don't want the thread to be polluted with comparisons of your product vs powermeters - stop reintroducing it to the conversation.

By including my own device in the post I am simply pointing out that, when it comes to sports equipment and training devices, most purchases are based upon faith as no proof of performance exists for hardly any of them. For the PM advocates, it is, seemingly, a hard pill to swallow.

That having been said, lack of proof is not proof of lacking. PM's may be just as wonderful as the advocates suggest and the current negative studies ill conceived. As it currently stands though, there simply is no scientific proof of any advantage to owning one.

 

[oldborn]

Aussies why anger?

 

[Tapeworm]

Of course I agree with all that stuff.

Excellent. We have some progress.

However, that is not evidence that using a PM as a training device is superior to any other effort feedback device. What you have presented is an argument as to why it should be better. But, the evidence from the studies show that what we would expect from your argument does not occur in practice.

Would you, Frank, agree that a Vernier Calliper is superior to an electrocardiogram? If not, why not?

Would you agree that comparison of HR six months apart would yield little useful information in relation to the effectiveness/ineffectiveness of a training programme?

Would you agree that if you compared HR, RPE, lactate levels, speed, and cadence over a set course would give a decent approximation of to the effectiveness/ineffectiveness of a training programme?

Would you agree that in the study in question they did in fact record power output for all riders?

If yes to the above question, why do you think this was?

 

[FrankDay]

No, Frank, I am not telling you that. Stop trolling.

CLEARLY if you are going to buy a tool, you are going to get advice from experts on how best to use it. The expectation is NOT that the powermeter is going to make the rider perform better. You know that and you keep bringing it up.

A Heartrate monitor does not improve performance - training with knowledge of heartrate does.

Perceived Exertion does not improve performance - training with knowledge of perceived exertion does.

Likewise, a powermeter does not improve performance - training with knowledge of training with power does

The question is not whether what you say is true or not but whether training with knowledge obtained from a power meter is superior to training with knowledge obtained from a HRM or, even, perceived exertion. That is why, IMHO, most people purchase a PM for hundreds or thousands of dollars because they believe the improved performance they expect from the knowledge they will gain will exceed the benefit they will see from what they are doing now, be it using PE or HRM. The current studies suggest there is no advantage despite the advocates believing there is one. Perhaps there is a benefit but the study hasn't been done yet showing whether any benefit exists or, just as importantly, how large it might be, if it exists.

 

[Tapeworm]

This thread is not about 100mm cranks. This thread is about PM's.

By including my own device in the post I am simply pointing out that, when it comes to sports equipment and training devices, most purchases are based upon faith as no proof of performance exists for hardly any of them.

Is this the fastest "Frank Day" contradiction?

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

The current studies suggest there is no advantage despite the advocates believing there is one. Perhaps there is a benefit but the study hasn't been done yet showing whether any benefit exists or, just as importantly, how large it might be, if it exists.

No, the studies you are talking about suggest that using a PM to pace interval efforts versus other means of pacing of a similar type and duration is not significantly different in impact.

That should come as absolutely no surprise to anyone. If you take properly randomised groups of athletes and ask them all to do the same training, I'd expect them to end up with a similar outcome, on average.

If that was the only means by which one could utilise the power meter, then I would agree that a PM would be of limited value. But it's not, not by a long shot. Indeed to suggest that this is the only way one can/should use the tool is disingenuous, and a false representation of the concepts behind training with power.

Quite simply, these studies have not examined the benefits of using a power meter and to suggest they have is misleading (either through ignorance or deliberate obfuscation).

It's a bit testing a Doppler Ultrsound device and concluding it is of no value since it's ability to measure heart rate is no better than taking one's pulse.

 

[oldborn]

While I was walking my dog this morning, we had this kind of conversation:

ME: You know there is some Alex dude and some others on CN forum, they are selling and beleive in PM.

DOG: What they are selling?

ME: Power meters you know that stuff which help us to make better desicions on training.

DOG: Never heard. What is the point Boss?

ME: The point is IMHO that they just beleive in PM without any evidence that

PM really help us.

DOG: I do not see any problem at all, do you?

ME: Well nah, you are wright there is no problemo at all.

ME: But on the other hand we have that Frank dude who is selling and beleive in PC.

DOG: What Frank are selling and beleive in?

ME: Power cranks, you know he beleive that PC can help us.

DOG: Ok Boss, what is your point?

ME: Well, those PM guys wants evidences from Frank signed by Pope and Catholic Church itself that PC really help us.

DOG: I do not see any problem at all, do you?

ME: Problem is that PM guys selling stuff without evidences, but on the other hand they wants evidences from Frank, that IMHO is problem.

DOG: I see Boss, do you know how dogs call it?

ME: No

DOG: Hypocricy or cluster****!

ME. I did not knew that dogs now about that.

DOG: Boss even dogs can realize what really here is about.

ME: What?

DOG: Are you stupid or what? Money Boss, money

I am just saying!

 

[Martin318is]

I'm not selling PMs.

What I personally don't understand is your negativity about a simple tool. What did a powermeter ever do to you, Oldborn? Are you tired of being beaten in races by people that train with them?

 

[FrankDay]

Excellent. We have some progress.



Would you, Frank, agree that a Vernier Calliper is superior to an electrocardiogram? If not, why not?

Huh? Off topic.

Would you agree that comparison of HR six months apart would yield little useful information in relation to the effectiveness/ineffectiveness of a training programme?

Depends upon the purposes of the program. If one is talking endurance program a comparison of resting HR 6months apart might say something about the quality of the program. Otherwise, HR per se doesn't say much.

Would you agree that if you compared HR, RPE, lactate levels, speed, and cadence over a set course would give a decent approximation of to the effectiveness/ineffectiveness of a training programme?

Compare to what? Same person 6 months apart or compare two people?

Would you agree that in the study in question they did in fact record power output for all riders?

Yes

If yes to the above question, why do you think this was?

Because, compared to something like O2 consumption, it is the easiest metric of the important metrics to measure and it is easy for the reader to understand. Further, the results are easy to analyze statistically and it is easy to obtain. Studies have pretty much always used power as an end point metric even before the wide availability of power meters.

I have no problem with using power as the end point metric in training studies if the aspect of the training that is being studied is power. But, despite Fergies assertions to the contrary I do not believe that power equates to performance. Many things affect overall performance, power is just one of them.

It is a reasonable question to ask as to whether people who use power as their feedback in training emphasize that aspect too much to the detriment of other important aspects such that their race performance improvement might not be optimal compared to other methods using different effort feedback methods.

 

[FrankDay]

No, the studies you are talking about suggest that using a PM to pace interval efforts versus other means of pacing of a similar type and duration is not significantly different in impact.

That should come as absolutely no surprise to anyone. If you take properly randomised groups of athletes and ask them all to do the same training, I'd expect them to end up with a similar outcome, on average.

If that was the only means by which one could utilise the power meter, then I would agree that a PM would be of limited value. But it's not, not by a long shot. Indeed to suggest that this is the only way one can/should use the tool is disingenuous, and a false representation of the concepts behind training with power.

Quite simply, these studies have not examined the benefits of using a power meter and to suggest they have is misleading (either through ignorance or deliberate obfuscation).

It's a bit testing a Doppler Ultrsound device and concluding it is of no value since it's ability to measure heart rate is no better than taking one's pulse.

Cool. But I have asked here several times and I will ask again, how would you design a study that would demonstrate the superiority of the PM over the alternatives that you believe exist?

If a suitable study design cannot even be devised then your assertion is untestable. Edit: If it is untestable then it becomes an "existence of God" issue and is no longer science.