Study on the usefulness of a power over other metrics

[oldborn]

I am tired today from yesterday sprint distance triathlon in Slovenia (in which i sucks).
My plan today was to do really easy recovery 2h ride (39x15/17 or so) just spinning. I found that harder (legs are not listening, really strong wind) then normal days cos hard race (you must be stupid to not feel), so i just continue on 39x23 or 25.

I feel more confortable and really enjoyed.

Does anyone can tell me on whole world what kind of benefit would i had from PM today??
If i had it i would followed how many watts 120w per example, which should be easy recovery ride. Today i just could not followed 120 wats, that is!

What i should do with data from PM today? I know deleted it for sure

Without PM or with it i did "the best" kind of training for sure.

 

[FrankDay]

If you know power, then at best heart rate is redundant but at worst it is misleading.

Well, I guess that is true if you don't know what HR can tell you. HR can give the athlete lots of valuable information to guide their training/racing. It just happens to be different information than a PM gives you.

For instance, if a runner or cyclist at a certain pace or PE (or power) finds that the HR is 5 beats higher than what they are used to so they know "something is up". The HRM doesn't tell them what is "wrong" but it can lead them to ask the question, WHY? Am I dehydrated? Am I sick? Am I overheating? Etc. Such information could either modify the workout or cause a change in the schedule but it won't unless the athlete is aware something is amiss. The HRM can help them become aware something is amiss earlier than they otherwise might.

Dr. Coggan writes a book about using a PM and calls the HRM simply redundant. Fergie thinks the HRM useless. You folks are so locked into power being the only important metric for racing and/or training that you seem to have lost sight of the forest for the trees.

Regardless, neither one of these devices has any scientific evidence to support that using them reliably results in better racing outcome than simply using perceived effort as the training and racing metric, AFAIK.

 

[FrankDay]

Only problem is you have no idea why heart rate is what it is. While you either can do the wattage or you can't.

You only have "no idea" about why the HR is what it is if you don't have "any ideas" as to what might cause such deviations from what is expected. If one has half a brain and has thought about this stuff, most people have a very good idea what the problem is.

Regarding your "you either can do the wattage or you can't" statement. Does the rider have any idea as to why they "can't" when they "can't". Does the PM tell them that?

 

[fatandfast]

To those that keep the numbers. If you see by using an SRM that your outputs are starting to fall off and adjust your training accordingly, what is the difference of a racer that uses an escalated heart rate in an off the bike reading to conclude the same thing ? Both are small adjustments made to advance recovery. I have found (only in casual discussion for the most part) that I consistently beat people that can create many more watts than I am capable of on average. During winter indoor training I consistently had below average watt readings but am still beating people w far superior results. I have stopped using both (SRM and HRM) one for money the other for time reasons. I have found that small lactic threshold workouts( 3x, eight min) have far better results than the science I was subjecting myself to in the past. I find that LSD(long steady distance) rides promote good mechanics like in the saddle technique and my overall sore muscle factor goes down with the combo of 2 or 3 lsd and the 2 or 3 TT days.
I have a new cycling friend that does 100% of his training based on SRM data,super nice guy,but he is not getting the results he is aiming for, on the road a % or 2 or 3 faster than me. Maybe lots of the plans and the data have to do with upper level/elite distances and efforts instead of my current never over 90 minute race regiment

 

[Tapeworm]

I've said it once, I'll say it again:-

Before power or HR I did:-

2x20mins
5x5mins
3hr + LSD

After power or HR:-
2x20mins
5x5mins
3hr + LSD

It's just now I have more quantifiable data from said rides. The physiology and it's, and more specifically "your", adaptations from stimuli don't change, just the ability to track it. In the above example from fatandfast would your training (that is working for you) change because you measure power?

 

[MarkvW]

What does the heart rate tell you and why do so many who train with a power meter (assuming they are data collecting types and came from heart rate) not bother with heart rate?

I think that periodic structured performance tests are greatly helped by the HR monitor. Take the easy day, for example. Give the rider a target easy HR range and have him maintain it for a fixed duration. Do this once a week. The wattage data would be interesting to compare over time. It would also be a way to collect useful fitness data on a day that otherwise not provide much to interpret.

You could assess the quality of the data by comparing it to your wattage-only fitness tests.

The "so many others" argument only works with people who are inclined to follow the herd. Works good for TV ads though. I don't know the "so many" you reference, so I cannot interpret their training choices (even if I were competent to do so).

 

[CoachFergie]

For instance, if a runner or cyclist at a certain pace or PE (or power) finds that the HR is 5 beats higher than what they are used to so they know "something is up". The HRM doesn't tell them what is "wrong" but it can lead them to ask the question, WHY? Am I dehydrated? Am I sick? Am I overheating? Etc.

Which is why HR is redundant. If a rider is dehydrated or sick their power will be down and they know to back off.

Such information could either modify the workout or cause a change in the schedule but it won't unless the athlete is aware something is amiss. The HRM can help them become aware something is amiss earlier than they otherwise might.

Measured better and with more precision with a power meter.

Dr. Coggan writes a book about using a PM and calls the HRM simply redundant. Fergie thinks the HRM useless. You folks are so locked into power being the only important metric for racing and/or training that you seem to have lost sight of the forest for the trees.

Poor us.

Regardless, neither one of these devices has any scientific evidence to support that using them reliably results in better racing outcome than simply using perceived effort as the training and racing metric, AFAIK.

Keep repeating that lie Frank. Power meters are a measurement tool not a training method.

 

[CoachFergie]

You only have "no idea" about why the HR is what it is if you don't have "any ideas" as to what might cause such deviations from what is expected. If one has half a brain and has thought about this stuff, most people have a very good idea what the problem is.

Among my 10,000 factors that make up cycling performance there are countless items that detract from performance. Dehydration, overtrainining, poor diet, excuse fat mass etc. The effects can all be tracked with a power meter. Dehydrated riders will produce less power than normal. Overtrained riders will produce less power than normal. Fat riders can be shown the affect on their power to weight.

Regarding your "you either can do the wattage or you can't" statement. Does the rider have any idea as to why they "can't" when they "can't". Does the PM tell them that?

What does? HR is no better and at times worse in determining if a rider is overtrained (parasympathetic vs sympathetic) and some people still believe that an increase in HR for a set duration equals an increase in performance.

 

[CoachFergie]

To those that keep the numbers. If you see by using an SRM that your outputs are starting to fall off and adjust your training accordingly, what is the difference of a racer that uses an escalated heart rate in an off the bike reading to conclude the same thing ?

The difference is that HR can increase and decrease and performance can improve and it can increase and decrease and performance go worse.

With wattage if the power goes up you are getting better and if it goes down you are getting worse.

Both are small adjustments made to advance recovery. I have found (only in casual discussion for the most part) that I consistently beat people that can create many more watts than I am capable of on average. During winter indoor training I consistently had below average watt readings but am still beating people w far superior results. I have stopped using both (SRM and HRM) one for money the other for time reasons.

I don't think anyone has suggested that wattage is the only determinant of race day results. I would also be cautious of comparing wattage data with others unless I was sure that both meters were calibrated and had been zeroed before every ride.

I have found that small lactic threshold workouts( 3x, eight min) have far better results than the science I was subjecting myself to in the past. I find that LSD(long steady distance) rides promote good mechanics like in the saddle technique and my overall sore muscle factor goes down with the combo of 2 or 3 lsd and the 2 or 3 TT days.

As Tapeworm suggests in the post below yours neither HR nor Power Meters have changed the way people actually train. I think Andy Coggan recommends those 8min intervals as more effective than shorter VO2max efforts. The benefit of the SRM with these efforts is that HR will lag behind the effort and if you do a high volume of shorter efforts it is very easy to quantify each effort and to know when to end a session.

I have a new cycling friend that does 100% of his training based on SRM data,super nice guy,but he is not getting the results he is aiming for, on the road a % or 2 or 3 faster than me. Maybe lots of the plans and the data have to do with upper level/elite distances and efforts instead of my current never over 90 minute race regiment

Lots a people out there with Power Meters who don't really understand how to use them. A really good book is "The Triathlete's guide to training with power" by Dr Phillip Skiba.

 

[CoachFergie]

I think that periodic structured performance tests are greatly helped by the HR monitor. Take the easy day, for example. Give the rider a target easy HR range and have him maintain it for a fixed duration. Do this once a week. The wattage data would be interesting to compare over time. It would also be a way to collect useful fitness data on a day that otherwise not provide much to interpret.

You could assess the quality of the data by comparing it to your wattage-only fitness tests.

Pointless. You don't know what is affecting HR at any given point whether going hard or easy. There is also a difference between racing HR and training HR. I do TTs at 185bpm for 16km but if I try to sit on 185bpm even gently lifting the HR to that zone I have to back off after 5min.

Once one has a accurate FTP it is simple to work out recovery wattage zones and how many coaches know how hard it is to get riders to do a real recovery ride!

 

[FrankDay]

Which is why HR is redundant. If a rider is dehydrated or sick their power will be down and they know to back off.

HR is not redundant unless all you can see is it is only useful as an indicator of power. That is a short sighted view IMHO. Few others see it that narrow a way. HR gives the athlete different information about the response to any given stress that one can use as a validity check on the other indicators one has be it speed, power, or PE, or anything else. HR is a tool that many find valuable. You, obviously, do not find it so.

Regardless, there is no scientific evidence for the superiority of your view over that of others.

 

[CoachFergie]

HR is not redundant unless all you can see is it is only useful as an indicator of power. That is a short sighted view IMHO. Few others see it that narrow a way. HR gives the athlete different information about the response to any given stress that one can use as a validity check on the other indicators one has be it speed, power, or PE, or anything else. HR is a tool that many find valuable. You, obviously, do not find it so.

Regardless, there is no scientific evidence for the superiority of your view over that of others.

Didn't you mean to say that HR gives you information that stress may be occurring and NO information on why that is

The study by Nimmerichter et al., Lim et al. and many others clearly illustrate that wattage is a superior metric for cycling than HR. Of course we understand your bias because NO Gimmickcrank study has shown an increase in wattage and the two main anecdotal pieces of evidence supplied were either tampered with data or from a badly calibrated power meter.

 

[FrankDay]

…and some people still believe that an increase in HR for a set duration equals an increase in performance.

Well, all else being equal, an increase in HR does usually equal an ability to pump more blood in a minute (CO=HR x SV), which usually is associated with an increased performance if HCT is constant. In the face of a fixed HCT, increasing max HR is usually associated with an increased VO2 max. Changes in HR tells you a lot about the physiology of the person, assuming all else is equal and of course, assuming you have to have done the work to understand how to evaluate this. Perhaps you haven't done this yet.

 

[FrankDay]

With wattage if the power goes up you are getting better and if it goes down you are getting worse.

But, monitoring the HR might help one to better understand why the wattage is going down. One must put all information in the context of the big picture. That having been said, no one has shown that even doing all of that it makes one whit of difference as to outcome.

As Tapeworm suggests in the post below yours neither HR nor Power Meters have changed the way people actually train.

Then, why does having all those numbers make training any better if training hasn't really changed? Why are you such an advocate when these tools (especially one of them) costs a lot of money yet no additional benefit has ever been shown.

 

[CoachFergie]

Well, all else being equal, an increase in HR does usually equal an ability to pump more blood in a minute (CO=HR x SV), which usually is associated with an increased performance if HCT is constant. In the face of a fixed HCT, increasing max HR is usually associated with an increased VO2 max. Changes in HR tells you a lot about the physiology of the person, assuming all else is equal and of course, assuming you have to have done the work to understand how to evaluate this. Perhaps you haven't done this yet.

I don't need to, wattage tells me how my rider is performing better than HR.

 

[FrankDay]

The study by Nimmerichter et al., Lim et al. and many others clearly illustrate that wattage is a superior metric for cycling than HR.

Please give us to the link to these studies and point us to where they specifically demonstrate superior outcome (how else would one define "superior metric"?) from the use of one measure over another.

 

[CoachFergie]

But, monitoring the HR might help one to better understand why the wattage is going down. One must put all information in the context of the big picture. That having been said, no one has shown that even doing all of that it makes one whit of difference as to outcome.

Yes of course Frank, feedback has no effect whatsoever on performance

Then, why does having all those numbers make training any better if training hasn't really changed? Why are you such an advocate when these tools (especially one of them) costs a lot of money yet no additional benefit has ever been shown.

Keep repeating the lie Frank. A power meter is a measurement tool. One doesn't change the way they lose weight dependant on how they measure the process. They use the measurement to ensure the process is taking them in the right direction.

 

[CoachFergie]

Please give us to the link to these studies and point us to where they specifically demonstrate superior outcome (how else would one define "superior metric"?) from the use of one measure over another.

Still confusing outcomes with measures Frank

 

[FrankDay]

A power meter is a measurement tool. One doesn't change the way they lose weight dependant on how they measure the process. They use the measurement to ensure the process is taking them in the right direction.

So, it is your contention that a cyclist cannot know if they are getting better unless they have a power meter on their bike or regularly get their power tested?

 

[CoachFergie]

So, it is your contention that a cyclist cannot know if they are getting better unless they have a power meter on their bike or regularly get their power tested?

Does a drop in body weight equal a drop a body fat? The scales is one measure and skinfold testing is a better measure of ones fat loss goals.

 

[FrankDay]

Still confusing outcomes with measures Frank

Not in the least. But this is a site populated mostly by people who race bicycles. Tell them again why you think most of them should spend 2-3k on a device that gives them a "more accurate" number but having that number doesn't necessarily make them any better?

 

[CoachFergie]

Not in the least. But this is a site populated mostly by people who race bicycles. Tell them again why you think most of them should spend 2-3k on a device that gives them a "more accurate" number but having that number doesn't necessarily make them any better?

Sure can Frank.

Best way to quantify the demands of each specific event.
-Can say you need a certain RPE to win the Tour de France
-Can't say you need to sustain a certain HR to win Tour de France
-Can say a certain W/kg or Frontal Area to power will make you competitive

Best way to assess the current physical fitness of the event.
-Can measure power relative to the course and demands of the event
-Can be used to determine power at LT, IAT, VO2max, VT etc.

Best way to determine acute training responses
-You can either do the power or you can't
-No guessing why lactate, HR, RPE, ventilation, personal vibes are what they are on any given ride

Best way to determine chronic training adaptations
-10 watts more over a given period is 10 watts more
-10kph could the difference between Summer and Winter or a headwind or tailwind
-10 beats per minute could be anything and lets not forget that many people produce more power while their HR went down. My HR at threshold went from 182bpm to 161bpm while power went from 190 to 220.

HTH Frank and note not a single celebrity endorsement or claim I can not back up

 

[M Sport]

Not in the least. But this is a site populated mostly by people who race bicycles. Tell them again why you think most of them should spend 2-3k on a device that gives them a "more accurate" number but having that number doesn't necessarily make them any better?

Anybody can get a PowerTap hub, new rim (alloy) and the building for under $1,000.

To me in a non-scientific analogy it's like this. I could estimate how long pieces of wood are, I could even tell you which ones are shorter or longer than the others. If I want to know exactly how long they are though I need to go to the garage and get a tape measure. The power meter is the tape measure, the heart rate monitor in comparsion is no more than a piece of string.

 

[FrankDay]

Sure can Frank.

Best way to quantify the demands of each specific event.
-Can say you need a certain RPE to win the Tour de France
-Can't say you need to sustain a certain HR to win Tour de France
-Can say a certain W/kg or Frontal Area to power will make you competitive

Best way to assess the current physical fitness of the event.
-Can measure power relative to the course and demands of the event
-Can be used to determine power at LT, IAT, VO2max, VT etc.

Best way to determine acute training responses
-You can either do the power or you can't
-No guessing why lactate, HR, RPE, ventilation, personal vibes are what they are on any given ride

Best way to determine chronic training adaptations
-10 watts more over a given period is 10 watts more
-10kph could the difference between Summer and Winter or a headwind or tailwind
-10 beats per minute could be anything and lets not forget that many people produce more power while their HR went down. My HR at threshold went from 182bpm to 161bpm while power went from 190 to 220.

HTH Frank and note not a single celebrity endorsement or claim I can not back up

Then, you are trying to say outcome is improved from use of the device compared to other methods of trying to do the same thing. PROVE IT!

 

[FrankDay]

Anybody can get a PowerTap hub, new rim (alloy) and the building for under $1,000.

To me in a non-scientific analogy it's like this. I could estimate how long pieces of wood are, I could even tell you which ones are shorter or longer than the others. If I want to know exactly how long they are though I need to go to the garage and get a tape measure. The power meter is the tape measure, the heart rate monitor in comparsion is no more than a piece of string.

If I want to build a square box I don't need a tape measure. I can simply use the first cut to measure the next three and a length of string to measure the diagonals. Having a tape measure doesn't make the box more square even though you might be able to more accurately tell me what the length of each side is. If the objective is to build a square box the tape measure simply wastes time. If the objective is to know how long each side is then the tape measure is a necessity. What is the goal? Does the tool help you to better reach the goal or a better job in some superfluous operation related to the goal?