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

[FrankDay]

Here is an article that goes somewhat to this discussion.

From the article

In the previous example with LT, Rider A can counter Rider B two ways physiologically:

1. Train his LT to get it to a higher percentage of VO2max. Even if he can get it to 80% (60 x 0.8 = 48 mL/kg/min), he’ll have the advantage.

2. Really work on his economy, so that he can ride the same wattage and speed using 42 mL/kg/min as Rider B can at 45 mL/kg/min.

So, he proposes there are two ways of improving, one focusing on power and the other focusing on economy. (edit: and it seems the PM crowd are a "focus on power" type) (And, of course, he is neglecting improving aerodynamics, but this is an article on physiology.) There are lots of ways of getting better. Without some studies comparing these different methods we are all in the dark as to what is best. In this thread we have been talking about different methods of focusing on power and the studies are seemingly inadequate for this simple distinction.

 

[Oldman]

Here is an article that goes somewhat to this discussion.

From the article

So, he proposes there are two ways of improving, one focusing on power and the other focusing on economy. (edit: and it seems the PM crowd are a "focus on power" type) (And, of course, he is neglecting improving aerodynamics, but this is an article on physiology.) There are lots of ways of getting better. Without some studies comparing these different methods we are all in the dark as to what is best. In this thread we have been talking about different methods of focusing on power and the studies are seemingly inadequate for this simple distinction.

Actually anyone who doesn't train to actually improve their power is missing the basis for racing. You don't need to be aero to climb, survive in the pack or launch an attack. Being aero comes into play if you have that rare ability to stay off the front or in a TT. Minus the power having an improved aero position is only a minor aid. Whether a powertap or powercranks help you train for power is peripheral to the real issue: what motivated the rider to train harder/smarter? I've seen guys get more improvement riding regularly indoors with a Racermate simulator than either of the devices being pimped.

 

[FrankDay]

Actually anyone who doesn't train to actually improve their power is missing the basis for racing. You don't need to be aero to climb, survive in the pack or launch an attack. Being aero comes into play if you have that rare ability to stay off the front or in a TT. Minus the power having an improved aero position is only a minor aid. Whether a powertap or powercranks help you train for power is peripheral to the real issue: what motivated the rider to train harder/smarter? I've seen guys get more improvement riding regularly indoors with a Racermate simulator than either of the devices being pimped.

I can agree with this.

Power is the most important element to racing. But, there are many ways to increase power such as focusing on increasing LT and VO2max or focusing on increasing economy or, as I advocate, improving both of these or just riding the bike more and not focusing on anything. The question for the purposes of this thread is whether using a PM enhances ones ability to do either of these over other methods.

 

[Tapeworm]

Would you, Frank, agree that a Vernier Calliper is superior to an electrocardiogram?

Huh? Off topic.

Very much on topic. Answer the question. It's very simple. Yes or no.

 

[FrankDay]

Very much on topic. Answer the question. It's very simple. Yes or no.

vernier calliper vs electrocardiogram? Which is superior? Superior in doing what?

Is a digital calculator that can go to 20 decimal places superior to a slide rule? I guess it depends on what the need is and whether electricity is available doesn't it.

 

[Martin318is]

Here is an article that goes somewhat to this discussion.

From the article

So, he proposes there are two ways of improving, one focusing on power and the other focusing on economy. (edit: and it seems the PM crowd are a "focus on power" type) (And, of course, he is neglecting improving aerodynamics, but this is an article on physiology.) There are lots of ways of getting better. Without some studies comparing these different methods we are all in the dark as to what is best. In this thread we have been talking about different methods of focusing on power and the studies are seemingly inadequate for this simple distinction.

the part in bold is a pretty loose statement. Most riders that I train with are focussed upon improving their strength, power, fat %, nutrition, bike handling, tactics, and where possible their aerodynamic profile (even for road racing). Its a pretty simplistic world view to try to classify people based upon the fact they have a powermeter.

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

I've seen guys get more improvement riding regularly indoors with a Racermate simulator than either of the devices being pimped.

The Racermate simulator is a power meter in an ergo. It's what I use in our training centre.

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

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.

Once again you are confusing measurement with decisions.

You know there is a difference and are being deliberately idiotic and resorting to logical fallacy after logical fallacy.

What you keep trying to falsely assert is that how one uses (or misuses) data is a function of the tool used to provide it.

How one uses information (well or not well) to attain a performance outcome is unrelated to the tool used to provide the data (assuming of course the tool is providing correct data - and in the case of power meters, that has already been well established by the science).

 

[Tapeworm]

vernier calliper vs electrocardiogram? Which is superior? Superior in doing what?

Is a digital calculator that can go to 20 decimal places superior to a slide rule? I guess it depends on what the need is and whether electricity is available doesn't it.

Do you have comprehension issues? Simple yes/no answer Frank.

 

[FrankDay]

the part in bold is a pretty loose statement. Most riders that I train with are focussed upon improving their strength, power, fat %, nutrition, bike handling, tactics, and where possible their aerodynamic profile (even for road racing). Its a pretty simplistic world view to try to classify people based upon the fact they have a powermeter.

Well, it seems you forgot to mention economy as something most of the people you know work on. Since that was one of the two choices presented in the article I submit my statement is true.

 

[FrankDay]

Once again you are confusing measurement with decisions.

You know there is a difference and are being deliberately idiotic and resorting to logical fallacy after logical fallacy.

What you keep trying to falsely assert is that how one uses (or misuses) data is a function of the tool used to provide it.

How one uses information (well or not well) to attain a performance outcome is unrelated to the tool used to provide the data (assuming of course the tool is providing correct data - and in the case of power meters, that has already been well established by the science).

I would agree the decision making algorithm is the most important part to optimum improvement. If you would agree with me that the outcome would probably be the same whether the basis for the decisions came from a PM, HRM, or PE then we are somewhere. But, if you assert that better decisions can be made if the PM is the basis of the decisions then I simply say, prove it.

The study that started this thread used two very similar decision algorithms using different sources to control the training of the two groups that resulted in no difference.

 

[FrankDay]

Do you have comprehension issues? Simple yes/no answer Frank.

No (not normally anyway), do you?

 

[Martin318is]

Well, it seems you forgot to mention economy as something most of the people you know work on. Since that was one of the two choices presented in the article I submit my statement is true.

Yes Frank, I did forget to add it as it is certainly something that we work on.

Please don't try to score points from a simple omission in a post. I find your style of posting to be contrary to your claimed intent. This whole conversation is about you trying to appear smarter than those around you rather than actually attempting to have a worthwhile discussion.

Particularly since your statement was

and it seems the PM crowd are a "focus on power" type

and I very clearly listed many non power related areas of focus that ALL riders I train with work on - independantly from power based training that they do.

What are you going to come up with next? That I omitted recon rides of future race courses?

 

[FrankDay]

Yes Frank, I did forget to add it as it is certainly something that we work on.

Please don't try to score points from a simple omission in a post. I find your style of posting to be contrary to your claimed intent. This whole conversation is about you trying to appear smarter than those around you rather than actually attempting to have a worthwhile discussion.

I'd be interested in hearing about how you work on economy. What do you do along these lines? I am not aware of any study, save one, that has ever demonstrated it possible to reliably change cycling economy.

Edit: I would also be very interested in how you test for cycling economy.

 

[Tapeworm]

No (not normally anyway), do you?

Excellent, no comprehension issues. So I'll ask again:-

Would you, Frank, agree that a Vernier Calliper is superior to an electrocardiogram?

 

[Martin318is]

I'd be interested in hearing about how you work on economy. What do you do along these lines? I am not aware of any study, save one, that has ever demonstrated it possible to reliably change cycling economy.

Edit: I would also be very interested in how you test for cycling economy.

Not sure why we are now talking about economy in a topic about powermeters but okay - I'll play

We don't test for it Frank.

In the past SOME of the things I and others have done have been (but not limited to - thanks Frank for making me bother to add stupid legalese like that): Increasing flexibility to reduce muscle stress and improve fluidity of pedalling, core stability work to improve the stability of the platform the pedalling it being driven from, single leg pedalling drills to work on muscle firing patterns, high cadence work (with low resistance) to improve smootheness of cadence, fixed gear riding to work on pedal stroke, motor pacing, etc, etc.

One of the side benefits of all of these methods is that no extra equipment is required (we all have track bikes anyway so fixed gear riding is easy to arrange)

 

[FrankDay]

Not sure why we are now talking about economy in a topic about powermeters but okay - I'll play

We don't test for it Frank.

In the past SOME of the things I and others have done have been (but not limited to - thanks Frank for making me bother to add stupid legalese like that): Increasing flexibility to reduce muscle stress and improve fluidity of pedalling, core stability work to improve the stability of the platform the pedalling it being driven from, single leg pedalling drills to work on muscle firing patterns, high cadence work (with low resistance) to improve smootheness of cadence, fixed gear riding to work on pedal stroke, motor pacing, etc, etc.

One of the side benefits of all of these methods is that no extra equipment is required (we all have track bikes anyway so fixed gear riding is easy to arrange)

Well then, you are not working on economy. You may think you are but you don't have a clue whether it is working or not. Economy is a technical term similar to power. If you don't test for it or measure it how could you ever improve it? (where have I heard something similar before?) Improving economy requires increasing the amount of work that is done per oxygen consumed.

 

[FrankDay]

Excellent, no comprehension issues. So I'll ask again:-

Would you, Frank, agree that a Vernier Calliper is superior to an electrocardiogram?

I clearly don't comprehend what on earth you are driving at. I suspect I am not alone. Perhaps you can explain.

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

I would agree the decision making algorithm is the most important part to optimum improvement. If you would agree with me that the outcome would probably be the same whether the basis for the decisions came from a PM, HRM, or PE then we are somewhere. But, if you assert that better decisions can be made if the PM is the basis of the decisions then I simply say, prove it.

Then we cannot agree.

For example, how would you make sound decisions on whether a change in equipment or position is warranted if you cannot reliably determine the impact of the change with sufficient precision (as would be the case if you were not using a power meter)?

The study that started this thread used two very similar decision algorithms using different sources to control the training of the two groups that resulted in no difference.

IOW the problem is with the decisions made in that study, not the device used.

 

[Tapeworm]

I clearly don't comprehend what on earth you are driving at. I suspect I am not alone. Perhaps you can explain.

Apart from your inability to answer a simple question?

There is a reason for the question but it requires you to answer for it to be explained.

 

[FrankDay]

Then we cannot agree.

For example, how would you make sound decisions on whether a change in equipment or position is warranted if you cannot reliably determine the impact of the change with sufficient precision (as would be the case if you were not using a power meter)?

Here is the problem. You are presuming that one cannot git similar precision using alternative methods. Design the study to prove you are correct. Until that is done, your presumption is only that, a presumption.

IOW the problem is with the decisions made in that study, not the device used.

Design a study that has a different decision algorithm so your belief can be proved true.

 

[FrankDay]

Apart from your inability to answer a simple question?

There is a reason for the question but it requires you to answer for it to be explained.

Phoooeeey. Pretend I answered it then explain it.

 

[Tapeworm]

So you are incapable of answering a simple question.

Well let's try a different one.

Which is a superior measuring device, the digital stopwatch or the blood lactate meter?

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Here is the problem. You are presuming that one cannot git similar precision using alternative methods. Design the study to prove you are correct. Until that is done, your presumption is only that, a presumption.

Well there have already been studies to demonstrate the level of (im)precision in performing field tests for aerodynamics without a power meter, and plenty of data exists that demonstrates field testing with a power meter can be as precise as wind tunnels.

So are you suggesting that one can aero test to a precision level sufficient to make sound choices using a HRM, a cyclocomputer, a stopwatch, or nothing?

Design a study that has a different decision algorithm so your belief can be proved true.

?

A study to prove that poor decisions are poorer than better decisions? Not sure I follow your twisted logic.

 

[Martin318is]

Here is the problem. You are presuming that one cannot git similar precision using alternative methods. Design the study to prove you are correct. Until that is done, your presumption is only that, a presumption.
Design a study that has a different decision algorithm so your belief can be proved true.

Keen to hear what you think those alternative methods (that provide similar precision) are...