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

[FrankDay]

I get slightly lower Crr (.0067) and slightly higher CdA (.377), but the Crr *is* high: it's my commuter bike with the heavy tires.

As usual, Frank didn't understand the moral(s) of the story: 1) varying your speed across laps or loops or test runs improves the estimation, and the wider the range of speeds the better the estimation will be; and 2) it's possible to estimate drag with field tests without using a power meter but it's much easier to do it with a power meter. This is sort of like saying that you can lose weight without using a bathroom scale but it's a lot easier to use one; or you can calculate logarithms in your head but it's a lot easier to use a calculator.

[Edit:] On reflection, that last one is not a bad analogy. The study that initiated this thread is sort of like testing whether you get the same answer for an addition or subtraction problem whether you use paper and pencil or a high-powered calculator. Frank is arguing that if you can get the same answer from paper and pencil then the calculator is useless.

Huh? Perhaps if you actually read any of the stuff I wrote you might understand that most of my arguments in this thread (which wasn't started by me, BTW) go to the fact that it has never been shown scientifically that having a PM makes any difference regarding athletic outcome. Those who want to argue that having a PM should be better can do so, but they simply have nothing to back up their argument.

The one advantage that I used to think was clearly in the PM camp was the ability, as shown by you, to replicate the wind tunnel for aerodynamic drag data, even though very few PM owners actually use the device for this purpose (I would guess that most of them don't even know this possibility exists). However, now you have shown that even that can be done a different way that doesn't require a PM (even though it might be easier). So, perhaps you could point out exactly what "moral" of the story I missed, as it relates to this thread.

The US sent men to the moon when most of the engineers used slide-rules (remember those?) when doing engineering calculations. The fact that one can make an argument that a more accurate instrument should result in a better outcome it doesn't always work out that way in the real world. There is the principle of "good enough" to consider. And, if one wants to "calculate" logarithms I would suggest that a slide-rule is infinitely easier and faster than either in your head or using a calculator, as long as reasonable precision is acceptable.

Edit: "Frank is arguing that if you can get the same answer from paper and pencil then the calculator is useless." I am arguing no such thing. The argument is: If there is no difference in outcome between using pencil and paper or a $1-5,000 calculator then where is the argument for spending all that money on the calculator? The calculator is not useless, but shouldn't it provide a benefit commensurate with its cost? Perhaps the benefit is simply keeping the geek in us entertained because there certainly isn't any scientific evidence that it (the PM) does anything more than that for the athlete.

 

[RChung]

Huh? Perhaps if you actually read any of the stuff I wrote you might understand

Perhaps, but I'm pretty sure I once described to you how I grade student homework problems: I read until I find the first mistake then I mark it wrong and move on. In your case I rarely read past the first sentence or two before I move on.

 

[FrankDay]

Perhaps, but I'm pretty sure I once described to you how I grade student homework problems: I read until I find the first mistake then I mark it wrong and move on. In your case I rarely read past the first sentence or two before I move on.

Perhaps you could point out that mistake. In this instance all I did was link to a thread started by you.

 

[FrankDay]

Perhaps, but I'm pretty sure I once described to you how I grade student homework problems: I read until I find the first mistake then I mark it wrong and move on.

If I were in the "teaching" business I would be particularly embarrassed to admit that is how I dealt with student mistakes.

 

[CoachFergie]

The US sent men to the moon when most of the engineers used slide-rules (remember those?) when doing engineering calculations. The fact that one can make an argument that a more accurate instrument should result in a better outcome it doesn't always work out that way in the real world.

If they used more computers perhaps the human error that led to the Challenger disaster could have been avoided.

There is the principle of "good enough" to consider. And, if one wants to "calculate" logarithms I would suggest that a slide-rule is infinitely easier and faster than either in your head or using a calculator, as long as reasonable precision is acceptable.

We have been through this before. We could measure all the variables and work it out by hand but what if a rider is doing 75 x 15 sec intervals (a training drill listed in the ACF level 2 handbook), it would take longer than the session, a lot longer, to work out each effort and in WKO+ or Golden Cheetah can be determined in seconds.

Edit: "Frank is arguing that if you can get the same answer from paper and pencil then the calculator is useless." I am arguing no such thing. The argument is: If there is no difference in outcome between using pencil and paper or a $1-5,000 calculator then where is the argument for spending all that money on the calculator? The calculator is not useless, but shouldn't it provide a benefit commensurate with its cost? Perhaps the benefit is simply keeping the geek in us entertained because there certainly isn't any scientific evidence that it (the PM) does anything more than that for the athlete.

Just like I learned statistics or physics working everything out by hand and then graduated to using calculators to basic software like Excel and now harder to use software like SAS I find that these save time and are more accurate. I have yet to find any online calculator or equation that matches the results of a power meter. The subtle changes in environment change the parameters that make a stopwatch such a poor guess of performance that I feel bad running any championship outdoors where weather can affect an outcome so much over athlete ability.

 

[OJ....]

Skipping few pages so pardon if I missed some crucial bit of information.

So two groups training the same for five weeks does not produce different results. Can't really say that I would be surprised. It is interesting though that this could be used to bash the value of PM and boost the value of HRM when PM was not used in the study and interval training was done under supervision.

PM makes few things easier for me, and that's the main reason an old almost has been like me, uses a PM. I have trained more with HRM than with PM and dare to say that I've learned more about training after starting to use a PM. I could not care less about the cost of the PM as it's more or less the same amount of money I spend in alcohol a year. Then again with PM I can do my own "testing" all the time without spending $150-300/test to see what's going on.

If marketing messages are the issue, then there may be some bigger issues within the bike industry than a PM.

But hey, it's just cycling, the geekiest sport around, and should not be taken too seriously.

But carry on. Most of you know much more about cycling coaching than me, and I'm sure I've never had as knowledgeable coach as you are.

 

[Boeing]

Skipping few pages so pardon if I missed some crucial bit of information.

you missed nothing and said everything

props

 

[Nick777]

You heard it here first folks.

We certainly did.

Actually, you have been schooled all over the net. I admire your perseverance.

 

[FrankDay]

Actually, you have been schooled all over the net. I admire your perseverance.

SCHOOLED, an interesting term here, especially in view of how Dr. Chung has admitted to treating his students and the obvious contempt displayed by some others towards any who might disagree with them. Guess it, like beauty, is in the eyes of the beholder.

 

[CoachFergie]

SCHOOLED, an interesting term here, especially in view of how Dr. Chung has admitted to treating his students and the obvious contempt displayed by some others towards any who might disagree with them. Guess it, like beauty, is in the eyes of the beholder.

Might I stay off topic in replying to your off topic post that people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

Contempt is an intensely negative emotion regarding a person or group of people as inferior, base, or worthless—it is similar to scorn.

We subject a power meter as a measurement tool to the same scrutiny as we subject short cranks, independent cranks, nasal strips and lucky red socks as performance improvement devices. It shows a high level of contempt for people's intelligence to compare anecdotes and poorly conducted research as a similar level of evidence to the well performed studies that show power meters do in fact measure power.

 

[FrankDay]

…to the well performed studies that show power meters do in fact measure power.

The question is not whether PM's measure power, but to what end? Speedometers measure speed pretty well, HRM's measure HR pretty well, yet you seem pretty contemptuous of them. Does having any of this information do the athlete any good and, if so, how much good? So far, I am not aware of a single scientific study giving a positive outcome regarding any of these devices as regards influencing athletic outcome. Isn't that what started this thread, another negative study comparing PM to HRM?

 

[CoachFergie]

The question is not whether PM's measure power, but to what end?

Yes, why measure anything?

Speedometers measure speed pretty well, HRM's measure HR pretty well, yet you seem pretty contemptuous of them. Does having any of this information do the athlete any good and, if so, how much good?

Relevant performance measures. Speed and heart rate are affected by other variables. An increase in speed may not reflect an increase in performance, in fact a decrease in speed can lead to an increase in performance if temperature drops or the terrain becomes more steep and the extra resistance facilitates greater power delivery. I can't tell a rider that they need to ride at a certain heart rate to win the Tour de France but if they have an FTP of 5.8 W/kg they will be in the ballpark.

So far, I am not aware of a single scientific study giving a positive outcome regarding any of these devices as regards influencing athletic outcome.

But quite a few studies showing that training, diet and other interventions lead to an increase in measured power and that measurement of power from a cycle based power meter is a relevant performance measure. Seems the scientists don't confuse a method of improving performance with a method of measuring performance.

Isn't that what started this thread, another negative study comparing PM to HRM?

They found no difference between one group looking at one number and another group looking at another number. No surprises there. Can see why it was published in a crappy online journal.

 

[FrankDay]

They found no difference between one group looking at one number and another group looking at another number. No surprises there.

Then what are you "fighting" about? From the point of view of the measured outcome metric (power) it made no difference in the study whether the participants used power or HR as their intensity feedback measure during training.

I guess the question comes down to: Does knowing ones power positively influence what power is ultimately achieved? So far, the scientific answer to that question is NO.

 

[CoachFergie]

Then what are you "fighting" about? From the point of view of the measured outcome metric (power) it made no difference in the study whether the participants used power or HR as their intensity feedback measure during training.

Like it would have made no difference to performance if they watched the Simpsons or Family Guy while doing the training.

I guess the question comes down to: Does knowing ones power positively influence what power is ultimately achieved? So far, the scientific answer to that question is NO.

Same tired argument. Does the number on the speedometer makes the wheels go round on the car? Should we measure it? If we don't like speeding tickets then the answer would be yes. Do we like to know if our investment in time and energy to any method of training, choice of diet or piece of equipment has an effect on performance then we need a relevant measure of performance. Tah dah: the power meter.

 

[FrankDay]

Do we like to know if our investment in time and energy to any method of training, choice of diet or piece of equipment has an effect on performance then we need a relevant measure of performance. Tah dah: the power meter.

Now, we have hit the nail on the head. If an athlete "needs to know" that the work they are doing is resulting in measureable improvement then the PM will do that for them. If the athlete is capable of trusting that all the hard work he is doing will result in improvement then the studies support that the improvement will be equivalent but the athlete, of course, won't have that particular number to reassure him/her.

I can see why a coach would like the device, helps convince the athlete that all the money they are paying is getting some results. So, to the insecure out there, get a PM - you won't be any faster than you would have been without it but you sure will feel a lot better knowing that number.

 

[CoachFergie]

I can see why a coach would like the device, helps convince the athlete that all the money they are paying is getting some results. So, to the insecure out there, get a PM.

Still confusing results and performance.

What of my rider who always wins. How do I quantify his performance if the number in the results column is always 1? Perhaps he always win through good tactics, experience and skill. At least with the power meter I know that improved physical performance is part of the success.

Thanks to the power we know that short cranks and independent cranks are a waste of time. Nothing more than rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic while others experiment with training and dietary interventions that have a real impact on performance.

 

[acoggan]

If an athlete "needs to know" that the work they are doing is resulting in measureable improvement then the PM will do that for them.

And hence, the benefit of training with a powermeter (vs. training by power).

 

[FrankDay]

What of my rider who always wins. How do I quantify his performance if the number in the results column is always 1? Perhaps he always win through good tactics, experience and skill. At least with the power meter I know that improved physical performance is part of the success.

Like I said, the PM is apparently best for the insecure. The science says that equivalent work, be it based on using HR or power as the effort feedback, results in equivalent power increases. It you are so insecure as to understand and accept this then by all means use a PM, if it makes you and your athletes feel better and more confident.

 

[FrankDay]

And hence, the benefit of training with a powermeter (vs. training by power).

Then, the benefit is a purely psychological (feel better) one for the insecure. Are you agreeing with me here?

 

[CoachFergie]

Like I said, the PM is apparently best for the insecure. The science says that equivalent work, be it based on using HR or power as the effort feedback, results in equivalent power increases. It you are so insecure as to understand and accept this then by all means use a PM, if it makes you and your athletes feel better and more confident.

You are confusing the work that is done to try and improve performance with the measurement of performance. Measurement doesn't make you ride the bike at higher power levels, riding the bike harder does.

Insecure? Damn straight. I don't know it all and every aspect of my coaching is in essence an experiment. Glad I have a valid and reliable measure of performance rather than anecdotes and personal opinion.

 

[CoachFergie]

Then, the benefit is a purely psychological (feel better) one for the insecure. Are you agreeing with me here?

So you would suggest to Tony Martin that because he is World Champion he does not need to look for further gains? Just waltz into London and collect his Gold medal.

 

[FrankDay]

You are confusing the work that is done to try and improve performance with the measurement of performance.

No I am not confusing those. Measuring power does not change it. The power one can output is based upon all the work that came before. For equivalent training work the science says it is the same whether it is being measured or not.

Periodic measurement of power is a tool one might use to guide training decisions. And, even though a separate argument for the PM can be made for this point there is zero scientific evidence such knowledge makes any outcome difference.

 

[FrankDay]

So you would suggest to Tony Martin that because he is World Champion he does not need to look for further gains? Just waltz into London and collect his Gold medal.

No, but I would suggest that there is no evidence that using a PM will help him maximize his potential. Whether he chooses to use one or not is immaterial to this discussion.

 

[CoachFergie]

And, even though a separate argument for the PM can be made for this point there is zero scientific evidence such knowledge makes any outcome difference.

Same tired argument. Measurement is not meant to affect outcome. It simply helps one to determine if the intervention (training, diet, equipment, position etc) had an effect on performance.

 

[CoachFergie]

No, but I would suggest that there is no evidence that using a PM will help him maximize his potential. Whether he chooses to use one or not is immaterial to this discussion.

Training, diet, equipment and position among other things will maximise his potential. A power meter is how we measure those interventions.