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

[elapid]

Without getting involved in this argument, Frank Day has two points IMO:

1. There is no documented "scientific" proof for the benefit of PMs in comparison to other training devices, just testimonials. Frank Day was lambasted on another thread for using testimonials to support the use of powercranks. Why is he criticized for supporting powercranks with testimonials and no scientific studies to support their use, and PM supporters not criticized for exactly the same thing? Please note that this is a black-white, yes-no scenario. I use a PM and I understand the benefits of a PM and I would not go back to a HR monitor, but I am just saying that some of you are being hypocritical when using this argument against Frank in one thread and not allowing him to use this argument in this thread.

2. Any scientific paper can be criticized by people in the field, this paper is no different. However, people who live in glass houses should not throw stones. For those that criticize the paper, then isn't it beholden on you to come up with a study design to show how a PM can be used effectively?

As stated above, this is not about PMs or their effectiveness as a training tool, just an argument for argument's sake.

 

[sciguy]

Without getting involved in this argument, Frank Day has two points IMO:

1. Why is he criticized for supporting powercranks with testimonials and no scientific studies to support their use,

As the inventor and company owner of Power Cranks, Frank stands to gain financially from the promotion of them whether they improve cycling performance or not. Due to this fact alone, I would contend that his vested interest in the product's success is so strong that he must be held to a high level of evidence when claiming its efficacy. Frank's historic claims of Power Crank users typically improving their power by 40% was an early example of what many of us felt was pure hog wash.

If the makers or dealers of Power Meters came to this forum and made claims that use of their product would cause a substantial improvement in a cyclist's performance then I would agree that they should be lambasted just as Frank has been.

Power meters are a whole different category of product. They are a precise measuring tool that allows users to evaluate the efficacy of training methods and equipment choices such as incorporating Power Crank training, shorter cranks, arch cleats, aero helmets, lower positions etc.. Whether or not an individual chooses to spend a few hundred dollars or more to be able to obtain reliable, accurate measurements for their evaluations should be up to them. Heaven knows many are willing to pay thousands for aero wheels that provide less benefit than a $100 aero helmet. It only takes a few minutes to see the difference using a power meter.

 

[Martin318is]

1. There is no documented "scientific" proof for the benefit of PMs in comparison to other training devices, just testimonials. Frank Day was lambasted on another thread for using testimonials to support the use of powercranks. Why is he criticized for supporting powercranks with testimonials and no scientific studies to support their use, and PM supporters not criticized for exactly the same thing?

Answer to question 1 is simple. Review the claims on this website that are specific to the tool itself and its recommended use:

http://www.powercranks.com/

whereas a powermeter is a measurement tool - not a training method in and of itself. There are theoretically as many possible training programs using powermeters as there are coaches (actually more).

A study could validate a particular program - and therefore the person that designed it - not the powermeter itself. The query on whether a powermeter 'works' is whether it measures power (at whatever location it claims to - be it crank, pedal, or wheel) to a claimed level of tolerance.

The powercrank claims are more equivalent to a coach declaring - train this way and you will improve this much in this amount of time. eg. the powercranks site says: "Cyclists typically see 2-3 mph speed improvement in 6-9 months" Therefore, Frank should be able to provide more than just a few anecdotes to support the claims if they are to be considered more than just marketing spin. He clearly recognises this but instead attempts to distract with requests for studies that prove that a powermeter improves performance all by itself.

It would be more accurate to suggest that powercranks are equivalent to Chris Carmichael stating that you too can improve 20% in 3 months if you train based on power using this programme (that uses power values) **I made those numbers up but the style is familiar to most of us**
- if someone wants to attack a coach statement like that one then please do so and yes I would support the statement that there should be some form of proof to back that up if anyone is to take it seriously as anything other than dodgy advertising.

I'm getting off the roundabout at this point.

 

[oldborn]

As the inventor and company owner of Power Cranks, Frank stands to gain financially from the promotion of them whether they improve cycling performance or not. Due to this fact alone, I would contend that his vested interest in the product's success is so strong that he must be held to a high level of evidence when claiming its efficacy. Frank's historic claims of Power Crank users typically improving their power by 40% was an early example of what many of us felt was pure hog wash.

If the makers or dealers of Power Meters came to this forum and made claims that use of their product would cause a substantial improvement in a cyclist's performance then I would agree that they should be lambasted just as Frank has been.

Power meters are a whole different category of product. They are a precise measuring tool that allows users to evaluate the efficacy of training methods and equipment choices such as incorporating Power Crank training, shorter cranks, arch cleats, aero helmets, lower positions etc.. Whether or not an individual chooses to spend a few hundred dollars or more to be able to obtain reliable, accurate measurements for their evaluations should be up to them. Heaven knows many are willing to pay thousands for aero wheels that provide less benefit than a $100 aero helmet. It only takes a few minutes to see the difference using a power meter.

And I have that hunch that you are Fargo sock puppet

 

[elapid]

Thanks sciguy and Martin 318is. Good arguments. Just to reiterate, I am just arguing for argument's sake. I am not questioning PMs or their role in training and racing.

In my first point, I specifically mentioned that it was a yes-no, black-white type of question because I realize the difference between the two products and that Frank has a vested interest (and hence a conflict of interest if he ever published a paper) in Powercranks. If we get into the shades of grey, then I definitely agree with you both. But if you take the black-white approach, both products are marketed with no support from scientific studies, just testimonials.

The question regarding designing a study or studies to support the use of PMs is just as valid and appropriate for Frank to design a study to support the use of Powercranks. I am not an exercise physiologist and don't pretend to be, but in my field (small animal surgical oncology) if we have a question we want answered then we design and conduct a study to answer that question (and hopefully publish it). I do not know how to design a study to evaluate PMs (or Powercranks) or even what end parameters should be tested, but there seems to be lots of questions and no appropriately designed studies to answer those questions, only anecdotal evidence and testimonials. I will continue to use my PM for its designed purpose, and understand the reasons why I am using my PM, but it would be nice for one or all of the coaches and exercise physiologists criticizing the cited paper to come up with an appropriately designed study that answers all the criticisms mentioned in the previous posts.

 

[sciguy]

And I have that hunch that you are Fargo sock puppet

Just a guy who went out and purchased a Polar heart rate monitor when they were very first available and several more since then and then moved on to power meters from the original Look Max One, to Etune which became Power tap to SRM as well as a Quarq Cinqo. It took me about one day of working with a GPS enabled heart rate watch or heart rate enabled power meter to see that heart rate was a poor step sister to pace in running and power in cycling.

I've been at this a bit longer than Fergie or Frank for that matter.

 

[FrankDay]

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?

I understand your game now. I will play along as I believe it will point out your error in thinking.

Neither can be chosen as superior unless we know what we are measuring. How is that for an answer?

 

[FrankDay]

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?

Aero testing may be a different matter. But, the improvement one may be able to achieve may be so small as to be race inconsequential. It ought to be tested so people can understand how good it is or isn't. Since the vast majority of PM owners either don't know of this capability of the device or have never used it for this purpose if they do know we should not be talking about this. Let's talk about power training for the purpose of this thread. It is a power meter after all.

?

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

Well, you are claiming the reason the study showed no difference was the algorithm was poor. What you need is a study in which the algorithm is essentially the "same" for the two (or three) groups but the effort measuring device is different for the three groups. You need to come up with a testable algorithm that somehow proves that using the PM gives superior results to using something else.

Otherwise all we are hearing is "trust me, I know what I am talking about"

 

[FrankDay]

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

For the purposes of power training, according to two recent scientific studies, HRM feedback offers equivalent feedback and equivalent results. I would also suggest that perceived exertion should be added to the list as a possible equivalent feedback device.

 

[FrankDay]

As the inventor and company owner of Power Cranks, Frank stands to gain financially from the promotion of them whether they improve cycling performance or not. Due to this fact alone, I would contend that his vested interest in the product's success is so strong that he must be held to a high level of evidence when claiming its efficacy. Frank's historic claims of Power Crank users typically improving their power by 40% was an early example of what many of us felt was pure hog wash.

I accept that as reasonable. Of course, since we didn't have scientific studies to prove what our early data suggested, we offered a 2 month, which we increased to 3 month when we determined that some adapted slower, guarantee. At the time that was the best "evidence" we could provide, the evidence that the user saw for him or herself.

If the makers or dealers of Power Meters came to this forum and made claims that use of their product would cause a substantial improvement in a cyclist's performance then I would agree that they should be lambasted just as Frank has been.

Power meters are a whole different category of product. They are a precise measuring tool that allows users to evaluate the efficacy of training methods and equipment choices such as incorporating Power Crank training, shorter cranks, arch cleats, aero helmets, lower positions etc.. Whether or not an individual chooses to spend a few hundred dollars or more to be able to obtain reliable, accurate measurements for their evaluations should be up to them. Heaven knows many are willing to pay thousands for aero wheels that provide less benefit than a $100 aero helmet. It only takes a few minutes to see the difference using a power meter.

The power meter manufacturers don't have to come here because their advocates come here for them and until I pointed out that there wasn't a single study to support anything they say everyone just told each other how smart they each were for using this wondrous device. Anyhow, the question is not whether the PM can be used for all those things you say but whether the result one obtains (if the user actually does those things) is better than what can be done without the PM from a "racing improvement" perspective.

In view of the number of world champions who race and train without a PM, if there is an advantage, it has to be small, IMHO.

 

[FrankDay]

Answer to question 1 is simple. Review the claims on this website that are specific to the tool itself and its recommended use:

http://www.powercranks.com/

whereas a powermeter is a measurement tool - not a training method in and of itself. There are theoretically as many possible training programs using powermeters as there are coaches (actually more).

A study could validate a particular program - and therefore the person that designed it - not the powermeter itself. The query on whether a powermeter 'works' is whether it measures power (at whatever location it claims to - be it crank, pedal, or wheel) to a claimed level of tolerance.

So, let me get this straight. I make some claims as to what my device will do for someone whether they have a coach or not as long as they follow some simple directions (use it) but this is not ok unless I can provide proof of my claims. whereas, it is perfectly ok for a coach to say "purchase this expensive but accurate measuring device and follow me and you will see wondrous results. Trust me I know what I am doing." and that is perfectly ok without his needing to prove some efficacy?

The powercrank claims are more equivalent to a coach declaring - train this way and you will improve this much in this amount of time. eg. the powercranks site says: "Cyclists typically see 2-3 mph speed improvement in 6-9 months" Therefore, Frank should be able to provide more than just a few anecdotes to support the claims if they are to be considered more than just marketing spin. He clearly recognises this but instead attempts to distract with requests for studies that prove that a powermeter improves performance all by itself.

Well, we can provide some studies (Dixon showed improvement in VO2max and power in 6 weeks, for one) but no study has yet lasted 6-9 months and don't hold your breath. So, what do we do as an alternative is offer a 90 day moneyback guarantee. Try and get that from a coach.

It would be more accurate to suggest that powercranks are equivalent to Chris Carmichael stating that you too can improve 20% in 3 months if you train based on power using this programme (that uses power values) **I made those numbers up but the style is familiar to most of us**
- if someone wants to attack a coach statement like that one then please do so and yes I would support the statement that there should be some form of proof to back that up if anyone is to take it seriously as anything other than dodgy advertising.

If any coach made that claim then also offered a money-back guarantee then I wouldn't have any problems with it, why would you?

I'm getting off the roundabout at this point.

bye.

 

[LabMonkey]

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

Easy - take one laboratory ergometer and one breath-by-breath gas analyser - perform a controlled 'ramp test' - say 30 watts per minute - calculate the amount of oxygen used per unit increase in power (linear regression of the increase in power against the increase in oxygen uptake) - i.e., calculate how many mL of O2 do you use to increase the power by 1 watt.

Examples - the vast majority of cycling studies use either a 'step' or 'ramp' test as the initial 'VO2max' type exercise test - the latter can give you the economy of the cyclist.

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Without getting involved in this argument, Frank Day has two points IMO:

1. There is no documented "scientific" proof for the benefit of PMs in comparison to other training devices, just testimonials. Frank Day was lambasted on another thread for using testimonials to support the use of powercranks. Why is he criticized for supporting powercranks with testimonials and no scientific studies to support their use, and PM supporters not criticized for exactly the same thing? Please note that this is a black-white, yes-no scenario. I use a PM and I understand the benefits of a PM and I would not go back to a HR monitor, but I am just saying that some of you are being hypocritical when using this argument against Frank in one thread and not allowing him to use this argument in this thread.

2. Any scientific paper can be criticized by people in the field, this paper is no different. However, people who live in glass houses should not throw stones. For those that criticize the paper, then isn't it beholden on you to come up with a study design to show how a PM can be used effectively?

As stated above, this is not about PMs or their effectiveness as a training tool, just an argument for argument's sake.

1. Frank claims a performance benefit from his product when the science has, time and again, shown that not to be the case. I can get you plenty of testimonial for lots of products that don't work. It's the marketing strategy that fuels the supplements industry. Power balance bands anyone?

On the other hand, power meters (which claim to measure power) actually do measure power and that's been demonstrated by the science. They do what they claim to, unlike a lot of products.

2. The paper was not a comment on power meters, but rather on how one trains. The power meter is a red herring.

If you want to conduct a study on how people train, or on how people work out how to become more aero for instance, then do that. But use a power meter to assess the impacts.

 

[Oldman]

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

I'm talking the older versions with no pm feature; just the screen and a increased grade "simulator".

 

[sciguy]

I'm talking the older versions with no pm feature; just the screen and a increased grade "simulator".

Gosh, We had one of their very first models (6000 I believe) and it certainly measured output in watts. It interfaced with a Commodore 64 too so things have progressed a bit since then. You must be thinking of a different trainer.

Hugh

 

[FrankDay]

1. Frank claims a performance benefit from his product when the science has, time and again, shown that not to be the case.

Well, I will grant you that science has time and time again proven that if you don't follow the directions one cannot expect from my product power improvement in the 5-6 weeks time frame.

On the other hand, power meters (which claim to measure power) actually do measure power and that's been demonstrated by the science. They do what they claim to, unlike a lot of products.

While PM's do measure power, the way they are used is as a proxy for effort. If one is telling someone to do certain power intervals what they are telling them is to be at a certain effort level. If used as a pacing tool, it is used to control effort. So, while PM's measure power very accurately, how good are they at measuring effort compared to other effort monitors, like HR and PE?

2. The paper was not a comment on power meters, but rather on how one trains. The power meter is a red herring.

But, PM's are supposed to make training and racing better or so most people think. Otherwise, why get one?

 

[FrankDay]

Gosh, We had one of their very first models (6000 I believe) and it certainly measured output in watts. It interfaced with a Commodore 64 too so things have progressed a bit since then. You must be thinking of a different trainer.

Hugh

I agree. My first interaction with the Computrainer it was controlled by a Nintendo game console. It had both an ergometer mode and spinscan, as I remember.

 

[Tapeworm]

I understand your game now. I will play along as I believe it will point out your error in thinking.

Neither can be chosen as superior unless we know what we are measuring. How is that for an answer?

The answer does not fit the question, thus still demonstrating an inability to answer the simple question. But your insight is amazing

Feel free to point out my "error of thinking".

 

[FrankDay]

The answer does not fit the question, thus still demonstrating an inability to answer the simple question. But your insight is amazing

Feel free to point out my "error of thinking".

I gave you my answer that one cannot determine which of two devices is the superior "measuring device" without knowing what is to be measured. You said if I answered my question you would make your point. Sorry, that is the best I can do answerwise.

 

[Tapeworm]

I gave you my answer that one cannot determine which of two devices is the superior "measuring device" without knowing what is to be measured.

So what is this thread about again? Are you sure of you assertion? Have there been studies to conclude this line of thinking? Any yet somehow the study in question seems to draw this conclusion.

By your own admissions the benefits of a power meter have been outlined...because it measures power.

Any other diversion from this and you may as well argue why a tape measure is better than scales, or why a thermometer is better than a stopwatch. Totally pointless.

Or do you have a personal vendetta against the "power crowd" due to what they advocate against your product? Somehow I think if Coggan, Fergie, Alex were advocating HR as the best way to measure effort you'd be just as outspoken against that.

 

[FrankDay]

By your own admissions the benefits of a power meter have been outlined...because it measures power.

Perhaps you might want to read what I write more carefully. PM's measure power but that is not how they are used. they are used as effort meters. Power is used as a proxie to control effort. People have there "power zones", zones used to control the effort used in training and racing.

I'll admit that knowing actual power might have some use in determining aerodynamic position or equipment choices but that is not how the device is generally used nor is it used this way frequently.

So, the study used two devices used to measure effort in training. It found no difference between these two devices. If you think there is an advantage to the device please tell us what you think it is and how you would devise a study to prove the advantage.

 

[elapid]

1. Frank claims a performance benefit from his product when the science has, time and again, shown that not to be the case. I can get you plenty of testimonial for lots of products that don't work. It's the marketing strategy that fuels the supplements industry. Power balance bands anyone?

On the other hand, power meters (which claim to measure power) actually do measure power and that's been demonstrated by the science. They do what they claim to, unlike a lot of products.

2. The paper was not a comment on power meters, but rather on how one trains. The power meter is a red herring.

If you want to conduct a study on how people train, or on how people work out how to become more aero for instance, then do that. But use a power meter to assess the impacts.

I re-read the abstract of the cited paper and, as far as I can tell, it compares the same training program using either the power range or HR range of lactate threshold. So the question this raises is if the results are not significantly different, then why use an expensive PM rather than a relatively cheap HR monitor for training purposes? So the PM is not a red herring in this case because the training program is the same, the only difference is how the participants gauged that they were training within their lactate threshold.

I know why and how to use a PM, so I am not arguing with anyone about the benefits of a PM.

What I am saying is that rather than picking a paper apart, like any knowledgable coach or exercise physiologist should be able to do with any similar paper, design and conduct a scientific study that shows the average Joe the benefits of a PM. This is up to the likes of you, Coach Fergie, and Andrew Coggan because of your knowledge and expertise in this area.

I checked the Powertap and SRM websites and all I see are testimonials from athletes and coaches. The Quarq Cinqo has neither testimonials nor scientific studies. So for three of the major players in the PM world, there is not a single scientific study to support the use of PM amongst them.

Again, don't get me wrong, I understand how and why PMs are used and I use one myself, I have communicated with my coach of 3 years on the basis of the results of my PM data, and have read both Hunter & Coggan's texts on the use of power in training and racing. I am a convert and don't need convincing on the benefits of using a PM. But I am also a scientist and do think that coaches and PM companies should work together to do something more scientific than testimonials and case reports.

 

[JayKosta]

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

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

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

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

 

[blutto]

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?

...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...

...and what is especially interesting, no make that troubling, is that you are playing dumb in the application of that double standard...mix in the fact that you have made your presence in the threads, that feature the war of words and personalities between CoachWhatEver and Frank, wearing in too many cases, your participant AND moderator hat at the same time...

...now I can understand having been rubbed the wrong way during the course of those heated and often foolish wars of words and either consciously( or not ) taking sides....but the idea that one item is valid without scientific proof and the other is not is, without putting too fine a point on it, hypocrisy plain and simple...and the hypocrisy is what Oldborn is throwing out there ( and I'm calling out your place in it )

....so the question becomes, given the sides you have most obviously taken in these debates, ( and they are debates and not discussions which is really the pity here ) is why...because it certainly looks at this point like you are firmly ensconced in CoachWhatEver's hip pocket and as a moderator that is really not a good place to be...

...so please lets drop that pretence that something has to absolutely validated by science to be useful...for the record nothing, absolutely nothing, ever really is...and given the fact that CoachWhatEver is a big fan of Lydiard, who is the poster child for case against crucifixion by the science nazis, and yet can turn around and apply the same crucifixion methods to Frank is beyond odious...so please cut your skiff loose from that ship because, frankly, it doesn't reflect well on you...

Cheers

blutto

 

[acoggan]

Power is used as a proxie to control effort. People have there "power zones", zones used to control the effort used in training and racing.

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