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

[FrankDay]

A power meter is how we measure those interventions.

That is cool. However, a PM is not the only way to "measure those interventions". It just happens to be the method you have chosen. Merckx seemed to do ok without such a device. One can only wonder how on earth he got so good without a PM.

 

[CoachFergie]

That is cool. However, a PM is not the only way to "measure those interventions". It just happens to be the method you have chosen. Merckx seemed to do ok without such a device. One can only wonder how on earth he got so good without a PM.

Eddy Merckx did train with a power meter. A FTP of 450 watts from a lab based test in 1973. Son Axel manages the Livestrong Cycling team and they all use Powertap powermeters to measure performance. They didn't have cycle based power meters then but they do now. Good to see the Merckx family moved with the times.

 

[acoggan]

a PM is not the only way to "measure those interventions".

No, but it is clearly the most precise - and where a 1% absolute improvement is 1/10th (or more) of the total possible improvement, precision is absolutely critical. Hence, the utility of training with a powermeter (vs. training by power in a laboratory on an ergometer, which is what the study under discussion assessed.).

 

[acoggan]

Merckx seemed to do ok without such a device.

Yeah, but Boardman did better* with one.

*Referring, of course, to his athlete's hour record.

 

[FrankDay]

No, but it is clearly the most precise - and where a 1% absolute improvement is 1/10th (or more) of the total possible improvement, precision is absolutely critical. Hence, the utility of training with a powermeter (vs. training by power in a laboratory on an ergometer, which is what the study under discussion assessed.).

Well, it would seem more precise. But, does that "extra" precision make any difference? You say that "precision is absolutely critical" but critical to what? Outcome? And, what is your evidence for that statement? There simply is none. Does the "more precise" $5000 model of the SRM give better feedback than a old used, less precise, PowerTap? Back up that statement with some facts/studies.

 

[CoachFergie]

Seeing the maximum potential advantage of changing crank length for either the tallest or shortest of riders using a 170mm crank was .5% a less precise measure may lead us down the garden path of wasting time fluffing around with crank length when there are options like short interval training that have led to a 100% increase in performance in a two week period.

 

[FrankDay]

Seeing the maximum potential advantage of changing crank length for either the tallest or shortest of riders using a 170mm crank was .5% a less precise measure may lead us down the garden path of wasting time fluffing around with crank length when there are options like short interval training that have led to a 100% increase in performance in a two week period.

Ugh, there is a substantial difference between the value of "precision" when it comes to gathering data for a study and "precision" necessary for everyday training use.

 

[CoachFergie]

Ugh, there is a substantial difference between the value of "precision" when it comes to gathering data for a study and "precision" necessary for everyday training use.

Tell that to the guys on the track who lose World and Olympic titles by a fraction of a second that precision isn't important.

Yet you claimed that we should be chasing every watt possible in the crank importance thread. What if a rider tests a training method, dietary practice or piece of equipment and actually improves but the less precise power meter fails to detect this.

 

[FrankDay]

What if a rider tests a training method, dietary practice or piece of equipment and actually improves but the less precise power meter fails to detect this.

So, what? The improvement is still there even if the less precise PM doesn't pick it up (or the rider who doesn't have a PM doesn't bother to measure it at all). Further, if the precision of a PM is required to pick up such small improvements, small improvements in one rider are difficult to attribute to one change or another. Daily variations make such conclusions challenging, if not impossible. If you are trying to do so you are on a fools errand, I submit.

Edit: You PM advocates cannot even show that there is any advantage to having any PM let alone that there is an advantage to having a more precise one. Come on Dr. Coggan, you were the one to make the statement that "precision matters". Please complete the sentence and tell us exactly how "precision matters" when it comes to effort feedback devices.

 

[acoggan]

Ugh, there is a substantial difference between the value of "precision" when it comes to gathering data for a study and "precision" necessary for everyday training use.

Clearly you still don't understand the difference between training by power and training with a powermeter. Didn't you read that book I sent you?

 

[CoachFergie]

So, what? The improvement is still there even if the less precise PM doesn't pick it up (or the rider who doesn't have a PM doesn't bother to measure it at all).

Again tell that to the riders who miss out on results by a 1/10 of a second or a centimetre that precision doesn't matter.

How do they know the improvement is there if they don't have a reliable measurement of performance?

Further, if the precision of a PM is required to pick up such small improvements, small improvements in one rider are difficult to attribute to one change or another.

Yet the only conclusion you could draw from Cadel winning the Tour de France was that indepedant cranks made the only difference. Humourous now we know that most of Aldo Sassi's stable had made the switch to fixxed gear training.

Daily variations make such conclusions challenging, if not impossible. If you are trying to do so you are on a fools errand, I submit.

Like posting stories of riders using short cranks and independent cranks and claiming improvements when it's more likely the training they did or the colour socks they wear had a greater influence.

This is why we run controlled studies that compare two groups so we don't come to faulty conclusions like Dixon study where there was no control group so no way to determine if it was independent cranks or the training that was performed that led to any improvements. Fortunately we have the Bohm, Williams and Sperlich studies to shed further light in that area.

 

[FrankDay]

Again tell that to the riders who miss out on results by a 1/10 of a second or a centimetre that precision doesn't matter.

Well, do you have any data to even suggest that the precision of a PM (let alone the possesion of ANY PM) would make any difference in such an outcome. If so, out with it.

How do they know the improvement is there if they don't have a reliable measurement of performance?

Ugh, I don't know about improvement but they should know about how they compared to the competition.

This is why we run controlled studies that compare two groups so we don't come to faulty conclusions

So, where are the controlled studies on the PM. Oh wait, one of them is the reason for this whole thread. NO DIFFERENCE SEEN

 

[acoggan]

The improvement is still there even if the less precise PM doesn't pick it up (or the rider who doesn't have a PM doesn't bother to measure it at all).

Aye, but if you don't know it's there, you won't know to continue doing whatever led to said improvement.

if the precision of a PM is required to pick up such small improvements, small improvements in one rider are difficult to attribute to one change or another. Daily variations make such conclusions challenging, if not impossible. If you are trying to do so you are on a fools errand, I submit.

My experience says otherwise. For example, based on routine use of a powermeter I can tell you that, at least for me (and, anecdotally, also apparently for others), 20 min intervals are more effective than 10 min intervals at raising my sustainable power. However, it wasn't until I got an on-bike powermeter that this became evident...even regular use of an ergometer did not allow me to make the connection.

Edit: You PM advocates cannot even show that there is any advantage to having any PM let alone that there is an advantage to having a more precise one. Come on Dr. Coggan, you were the one to make the statement that "precision matters". Please complete the sentence and tell us exactly how "precision matters" when it comes to effort feedback devices.

Again, you are confusing training by power and training with a powermeter.

Would it surprise you to know that I rarely modulate my effort during training in response to my power output? The only exceptions are when I 1) hold back earlier in a set of intervals, to avoid overcooking it and being unable to complete the session, and 2) pull the plug early on a workout because my power is abnormally low due to inadequate recovery (although having trained with a powermeter since 1999, that rarely happens anymore, as I have a much better idea of what I can/can't handle in terms of a training schedule).

 

[CoachFergie]

Well, do you have any data to even suggest that the precision of a PM (let alone the possesion of ANY PM) would make any difference in such an outcome. If so, out with it.

Ahah, so back to the confusion between something that measures performance, or results even (like electronic timing or a photo finish) and something that changes performance like training, diet or equipment.

Ugh, I don't know about improvement but they should know about how they compared to the competition.

Did they out-perform the competition or did they outsmart or use better equipment or gain a huge psychological advantage from wearing lucky red socks?

So, where are the controlled studies on the PM. Oh wait, one of them is the reason for this whole thread. NO DIFFERENCE SEEN

Plenty of studies comparing SRM, Powertap, Quarg, Polar and power measuring trainers that show that to varying levels of precision they do in fact measure power.

Like Andy is saying you are confusing training by power (and it's not something I do much of either) with training with power. I have just sped up my coaching process by signing up to TrainingPeaks coaching account to enhance this process and free the rider to spend more time riding and for me to spend more time coaching.

 

[FrankDay]

Aye, but if you don't know it's there, you won't know to continue doing whatever led to said improvement.

Oh phoooeey. If the improvement is so small that you need a "more precise" PM to pick it up it is so small that one cannot make any determination because it will be lost in the daily variation noise. Unless, of course, you have some data to contradict that interpretation. I won't hold my breath

My experience says otherwise. For example, based on routine use of a powermeter I can tell you that, at least for me (and, anecdotally, also apparently for others), 20 min intervals are more effective than 10 min intervals at raising my sustainable power. However, it wasn't until I got an on-bike powermeter that this became evident...even regular use of an ergometer did not allow me to make the connection.

prove it.

Again, you are confusing training by power and training with a powermeter.

Would it surprise you to know that I rarely modulate my effort during training in response to my power output? The only exceptions are when I 1) hold back earlier in a set of intervals, to avoid overcooking it and being unable to complete the session, and 2) pull the plug early on a workout because my power is abnormally low due to inadequate recovery (although having trained with a powermeter since 1999, that rarely happens anymore, as I have a much better idea of what I can/can't handle in terms of a training schedule).

Would it surprise you to know that many users of PM's do modulate their effort based upon their power output?

Simply provide the smallest smidgeon of scientific evidence that your "best use" of a PM makes any difference regarding outcome.

And, what do you mean when you say "precision is critical"? Those were your words. Tell us what you mean.

 

[CoachFergie]

Oh phoooeey. If the improvement is so small that you need a "more precise" PM to pick it up it is so small that one cannot make any determination because it will be lost in the daily variation noise. Unless, of course, you have some data to contradict that interpretation. I won't hold my breath prove it.

So why claim the "importance" of crank length when we are talking at best .5% improvement for the very tallest and very shortest of riders from riding a 170mm crank.

Would it surprise you to know that many users of PM's do modulate their effort based upon their power output?

I guess they didn't read Andy's book either.

Simply provide the smallest smidgeon of scientific evidence that your "best use" of a PM makes any difference regarding outcome.

Gardner (2004) showed that power meters do lead to the outcome of a power measured.

 

[FrankDay]

So why claim the "importance" of crank length when we are talking at best .5% improvement for the very tallest and very shortest of riders from riding a 170mm crank.

Well, if you are fixated on power I guess the advantage seems small but when one also considers the potential for the aerodynamic improvements the advantage starts to look a little (or a lot) larger.

I guess they didn't read Andy's book either.

Or, they did and it was so confusing they couldn't figure out what to do and what not to do.

Gardner (2004) showed that power meters do lead to the outcome of a power measured.

Wow, good for Gardner. That probably got him tenure. LOL

 

[CoachFergie]

Well, if you are fixated on power I guess the advantage seems small but when one also considers the potential for the aerodynamic improvements the advantage starts to look a little (or a lot) larger.

Claims are easy, I can claim that all the riders from World TT Champs who used 175mm cranks or longer appeared to have very good aerodynamic positions, most of the Pros will have tested in the wind tunnel so will have optimised their positions and didn't find they needed shorter cranks to strike the right balance between aerodynamics and power delivery.

Or, they did and it was so confusing they couldn't figure out what to do and what not to do.

I expect some people buy power meters and expect that the cranks will ride the bike for them. Doesn't make training and racing with a power meter any less effective a way to measure performance.

Wow, good for Gardner. That probably got him tenure. LOL

Do you always sulk when people take the time to answer your questions?

 

[FrankDay]

Do you always sulk when people take the time to answer your questions?

The question was to Dr. Coggan, not to you, to provide the smallest smidgeon of evidence that use of a PM makes any difference regarding OUTCOME. A study that suggest that power meter does a good job of measuring power is not what I was looking for.

Anyhow, I would suggest that you let Dr. Coggan (Andy as you like to call him) fight his own battles. I suspect he cringes every time you speak up on his behalf.

He has yet to answer the question as to what he meant when he posted that "precision is critical". Come on Dr. Coggan. The world is waiting to here what you meant when you said that. (Well, maybe not the world but, at least, a few of us here.)

 

[CoachFergie]

No, but it is clearly the most precise - and where a 1% absolute improvement is 1/10th (or more) of the total possible improvement, precision is absolutely critical. Hence, the utility of training with a powermeter (vs. training by power in a laboratory on an ergometer, which is what the study under discussion assessed.).

Just to refresh your memory here is what Andy wrote. He is clearly talking about the precision of measurement.

Outcome isn't mentioned because I assume he doesn't confuse measuring outcomes with what is done to improve outcomes.

 

[FrankDay]

Just to refresh your memory here is what Andy wrote. He is clearly talking about the precision of measurement.

Outcome isn't mentioned because I assume he doesn't confuse measuring outcomes with what is done to improve outcomes.

And, I simply asked him as to what that precision of measurement was critical. He has yet to answer. He made the statement, let him expand on it as to what he meant.

 

[CoachFergie]

And, I simply asked him as to what that precision of measurement was critical. He has yet to answer. He made the statement, let him expand on it as to what he meant.

Why is any level of precision critical? At NZ Omnium Champs last week three riders rode 1.04.8 for the Kilo TT. If we just measured to a tenth of a second we would have had three guys tie for 3rd place.

 

[FrankDay]

Why is any level of precision critical? At NZ Omnium Champs last week three riders rode 1.04.8 for the Kilo TT. If we just measured to a tenth of a second we would have had three guys tie for 3rd place.

Why don't you let Dr. Coggan (Andy to you) speak as to what he meant by those words and what evidence he has to support his statement?

 

[FrankDay]

Why is any level of precision critical? At NZ Omnium Champs last week three riders rode 1.04.8 for the Kilo TT. If we just measured to a tenth of a second we would have had three guys tie for 3rd place.

I might add, the precision to which you are referring is to a timing precision measured in seconds. The race organizers could not have cared less what each riders power was, whether precise to the 0.1 watt or the KW.

 

[CoachFergie]

I might add, the precision to which you are referring is to a timing precision measured in seconds. The race organizers could not have cared less what each riders power was, whether precise to the 0.1 watt or the KW.

Red Herring. It's not the race organisers job to care about power output in a race.

But I am sure the High Performance staff who were measuring data from the event (and lots of it) will be looking at performances very closely.