Study which show us that training with PM does not make you faster

[FrankDay]

This hasn't stopped you from making outrageous claims for a Gimmickcrank even though the science suggests a different conclusion.

Actually, the science doesn't suggest a different conclusion as no adequate test of the claim has ever been performed. Remember, the claim requires:

1. an average/typical cyclist new user
2. using the cranks essentially exclusively in training and,
3. 6-9 MONTHS are required to see the claimed benefit (although, of course, smaller benefits would be expected for lesser time but normally no benefit - in fact worsening - is seen before 4-6 weeks in most).

Look Fergie. It is clear that science has just shown that what you have concluded about a tool that you have extensive experience with is completely wrong, even though you have been shouting down anyone who would dare to take another view. Why on earth would you even pretend to think you have the credentials and experience to spout off on something you have zero experience with?

 

[FrankDay]

Yes, this is a second major critic of that study, average Dude has no lab.

That is a criticism of all studies as they are all done in the lab because conditions must be controlled to draw any conclusions. It is the transferring of what is learned in the lab to the field that is the difficult job of the coach/athlete.

 

[CoachFergie]

Look Fergie. It is clear that science has just shown that what you have concluded about a tool that you have extensive experience with is completely wrong,

Completely wrong

No statistical difference between groups and methodological issues is hardly the basis for "completely wrong".

even though you have been shouting down anyone who would dare to take another view. Why on earth would you even pretend to think you have the credentials and experience to spout off on something you have zero experience with?

Do I need to have cancer to be able to understand the research in the area. The studies are good, sorry they don't fit with the GimmickCrank marketing strategy.

 

[FrankDay]

Completely wrong

No statistical difference between groups and methodological issues is hardly the basis for "completely wrong".

If you say so although if I were you I would go back and review some of what I wrote about the HRM before I repeated this and someone went back and did this for me. (the word useless for some reason comes to mind.)

Do I need to have cancer to be able to understand the research in the area. The studies are good, sorry they don't fit with the GimmickCrank marketing strategy.

No, but having cancer doesn't make one any better at understanding the research either. A week ago you posted a link to a paper that you suggested proved the superiority of the PM. From that post and comments you showed you don't seem to be able to actually read a paper and understand what it shows or doesn't show. Your ideas have been shown to be completely wrong in at least one area perhaps hurting your credibility some in other areas for which scientific support for your views is lacking. Perhaps you should take a little time off and reflect upon how you put yourself in this corner.

 

[CoachFergie]

A week ago you posted a link to a paper that you suggested proved the superiority of the PM.

I seem to recall saying nothing is ever proved. Data at the time is presented and evaluated accordingly. The data from Nimmerichter suggests that wattage data is more sensitive to changes in performance and tells us more about how a cyclists is performing.

Perhaps you should take a little time off and reflect upon how you put yourself in this corner.

No Frank, I'm not going anywhere.

 

[Boeing]

@kiwirider

[/url][/IMG]

As you can see i am following trends as a trendsetter
I just cover computer screen with tape, and guess what: same average speed as before. As Macca i am trying to learn body to pace alone, i do not even look at stop watch.

oldbor, dude you ride a tri bike therefore you are not qualified to comment

 

[Boeing]

This hasn't stopped you from making outrageous claims for a Gimmickcrank even though the science suggests a different conclusion.

What the study shows and is mentioned in the discussion is that heart rate is a more stable figure to base training zones from. Because if the training is effective the wattage training zones to cause an adequate training stimulus are always increasing.

They conclude that this is a bonus for heart rate training as power needs to be tested far more frequently to ensure accurate training zones. This is mistake because determining heart rate zones is very hit and miss. Is the heart rate at 80% of max (aerobic) power a reliable number? I watch people perform Conconi and Lactate Threshold tests and they are guessing where the turnpoints are.

These heart rate zones are also determined in the lab which creates issues when one trains on the roads, off roads or the velodrome.

Counter to the conclusions of the study training with power means less testing in the lab while training by heart rate means having to perform more tests in the lab using lactate, ventilation or VO2 which is costly and lacks external validity to get a number which may not be very reliable.

while I agree with everything you say fergie, I find it ironic that you do not demand the same documentation from your own otherwise dogmatic statements on here. just sayn

 

[BigBoat]

You DO NOT know you are improving without power. Yes you can do a weekly flat time trial but the times are affected massively by wind conditions, ambient temp, & even vehicles passing you and which way their going.

Heart rate varies dramatically based on body temperature. I'd like to see this cited study performed in 0 degrees centigrade, riding with tights & thermal gear. Oh and the study would be 8 weeks, not 4.

If your over-reaching your power will drop. Heart rate will do a multitude of things based on the time of day.... Heart rate was "out" 10 years ago amongst most pros. Lemond started using an SRM in 1991, LOL.

I get the feeling the person who wrote this is inexperienced as a racer and has not ridden at a high level.

Lance started using SRM in 1994 I believe. It might have even been earlier.

Finally, this study COULD NOT have been performed without a power meter.

 

[CoachFergie]

while I agree with everything you say fergie, I find it ironic that you do not demand the same documentation from your own otherwise dogmatic statements on here. just sayn

What dogmatic statements would you like supporting evidence for? More than happy to oblige.

 

[oldborn]

oldbor, dude you ride a tri bike therefore you are not qualified to comment

Oh i see thanks Dude i knew that something is wrong.

 

[oldborn]

You DO NOT know you are improving without power. Yes you can do a weekly flat time trial but the times are affected massively by wind conditions, ambient temp, & even vehicles passing you and which way their going.

Heart rate varies dramatically based on body temperature. I'd like to see this cited study performed in 0 degrees centigrade, riding with tights & thermal gear. Oh and the study would be 8 weeks, not 4.

If your over-reaching your power will drop. Heart rate will do a multitude of things based on the time of day.... Heart rate was "out" 10 years ago amongst most pros. Lemond started using an SRM in 1991, LOL.

I get the feeling the person who wrote this is inexperienced as a racer and has not ridden at a high level.

Lance started using SRM in 1994 I believe. It might have even been earlier.

Finally, this study COULD NOT have been performed without a power meter.

Off course

 

[FrankDay]

Counter to the conclusions of the study training with power means less testing in the lab while training by heart rate means having to perform more tests in the lab using lactate, ventilation or VO2 which is costly and lacks external validity to get a number which may not be very reliable.

Do you have any evidence to support that statement? After all, the study showed better improvement for the HRM group without the need for a single lab test. It seems to me that HR is a "set and forget" type metric. Per the paper "However, a longitudinal study of 13 professional road cyclists found that under controlled conditions, the heart rate coinciding with various physiological markers was relatively constant (2–3 bpm) during the course of a season. In contrast, power output, which may be a more direct measure of workload, varied significantly (Lucia, A, Hoyos, J, Perez, M, and Chicharro, JL. Heart rate and performance parameters in elite cyclists: a longitudinal study. Med Sci Sports Exerc 32: 1777–1782, 2000.)" That while there might be some variation based upon some specific conditions, that over the long term it is a very stable metric and would require infrequent testing. So, some scientific support for your statement would be appreciated.

 

[fujisst]

Of course, you are welcome to choose any form of training that you think is best for you. Just don't come here and try to convince others that your choice is obviously better because the only science on the subject suggests a different conclusion.

Perhaps someday someone will do the study to validate your current bias.

Hmmmm, so let's see here - who would have the greater necessity for bias: you, who just so happens to be a seller of a competing training aid product, or me, who is the seller of nothing? You decide from whence the true bias cometh forth...

 

[FrankDay]

Hmmmm, so let's see here - who would have the greater necessity for bias: you, who is the seller of a competing training aid product, or me, who is the seller of nothing? You decide from whence the true bias cometh forth...

Well, you do. You have already spent your money on that device and you now have to justify your purchase to yourself. I am simply looking at what the science says about how well that product is likely to help you to improve vs the less expensive alternative. The science isn't much better or worse for my product. My product doesn't directly compete against either the HRM or PM (except in the sense of the discretionary dollar) because they are expected to do completely different things and are expected to be complimentary to each other.

 

[fujisst]

Well, you do. You have already spent your money on that device and you now have to justify your purchase to yourself. I am simply looking at what the science says about how well that product is likely to help you to improve vs the less expensive alternative. My product doesn't directly compete against either the HRM or PM (except in the sense of the discretionary dollar) because they do completely different things and are complimentary to each other.

LOL! Ask a silly question...
Training aid, Frank, training aid...
Lots of science for the efficacy of your training aid - right???

 

[FrankDay]

LOL! Ask a silly question...
Training aid, Frank, training aid...
Lots of science for the efficacy of your training aid - right???

actually, you will note that I almost immediately edited my answer to address that issue. You apparently got to it before I did.

Edit: Let me say that there are several studies on my product and the results are mixed. None of them, IMHO, are adequate to address what we think happens over the course of a full season of intense use. This is the first and only study looking at this issue for the PM so it is not possible to have mixed results. The only study on the PM so far shows no benefit to using one and even suggests outcome might be worse.

 

[CoachFergie]

Do you have any evidence to support that statement? After all, the study showed better improvement for the HRM group without the need for a single lab test.

How did they determine HR at 80% of maximal (aerobic) power again?

What does no statistical difference between GHEART and GPOWER groups suggest again?

It seems to me that HR is a "set and forget" type metric.

That is their argument but again we see that these threshold heart rates do change over time. Mine dropped from 180 to 160 in a 3 month period. But this could easily be the guesswork involved in determining thresholds from Lactate turnpoints or Conconi tests.

Per the paper "However, a longitudinal study of 13 professional road cyclists found that under controlled conditions, the heart rate coinciding with various physiological markers was relatively constant (2–3 bpm) during the course of a season. In contrast, power output, which may be a more direct measure of workload, varied significantly (Lucia, A, Hoyos, J, Perez, M, and Chicharro, JL. Heart rate and performance parameters in elite cyclists: a longitudinal study. Med Sci Sports Exerc 32: 1777–1782, 2000.)"

And that is one of the arguments of Nimmerichter that wattage describes the variability of cycling so much better than heart rate making it easier to quantify the work that is done in racing by wattage so we can assess the athlete and formulate plans to meet those demands in training.

That while there might be some variation based upon some specific conditions, that over the long term it is a very stable metric and would require infrequent testing.

That may be the case but the question is how one arrives at that number in the first place. In training with a power the preferred metric is Functional Threshold and Alex Simmons has written some really good articles about the issues with determining that figure with far less guesswork involved than determining heart rate zones.

 

[CoachFergie]

LOL! Ask a silly question...
Training aid, Frank, training aid...
Lots of science for the efficacy of your training aid - right???

Well you have to remember that Frank would like people to believe that a power meter is a training tool not a measure of cycling performance.

And that there are more benefits to using a power meter than just setting the ideal training intensity.

 

[CoachFergie]

Let me say that there are several studies on my product and the results are mixed.

Only varying degrees of no improvement in performance.

None of them, IMHO, are adequate to address what we think happens over the course of a full season.

While numerous other interventions show immediate changes in performance. You don't even have a sound rationale for why performance might improve. Spinal reflexes and using different muscles is not credible.

This is the first and only study looking at this issue for the PM so it is not possible to have mixed results. The only study one the PM so far shows no benefit to using one and even suggests outcome might be worse.

The GPOWER group improved in performance over the control.

 

[FrankDay]

And that there are more benefits to using a power meter than just setting the ideal training intensity.

Wow, and you accuse me of continuing the "lie". Where on earth is the evidence that a PM allows you to set the "ideal' training intensity? The study that started this thread suggests that the PM is suboptimal in this regards and there are better methods. While such a conclusion is not "statistically proven" the authors concluded such a result "likely".

 

[FrankDay]

The GPOWER group improved in performance over the control.

Gee, I thought it was your opinion that power was the only valid measure of performance. Further, I thought it was your opinion that TT time could not be used as a good assessment of performance because of the variation in environmental conditions. Since this study was conducted over an 18month period the various subjects could not have seen the same environmental conditions for their pre and post TT. Yet, because it suits your need, you think it is ok now?

 

[CoachFergie]

Wow, and you accuse me of continuing the "lie". Where on earth is the evidence that a PM allows you to set the "ideal' training intensity? The study that started this thread suggests that the PM is suboptimal in this regards and there are better methods. While such a conclusion is not "statistically proven" the authors concluded such a result "likely".

The study did no such thing.

They compared interval training where training intensity was based on either HR or Power. The study did nothing to assess training intensity determination from either HR or Wattage.

Questions have to be asked about the validity of the 80% of Max (aerobic) Power and reliability and interesting that they chose a percentage of wattage in the first place.

How is training with a power meter in this case suboptimal when the GPOWER group improved over the control and there were no statistically significant differences between the two groups?

 

[CoachFergie]

Gee, I thought it was your opinion that power was the only valid measure of performance. Further, I thought it was your opinion that TT time could not be used as a good assessment of performance because of the variation in environmental conditions. Since this study was conducted over an 18month period the various subjects could not have seen the same environmental conditions for their pre and post TT. Yet, because it suits your need, you think it is ok now?

Cherry picking Frank. They also improved W/kg over the control in the peak (aerobic) power. Nullifying the suggestion by you that in this study they performed worse.

All this study shows us is that interval training works. But we knew that

 

[FrankDay]

How is training with a power meter in this case suboptimal when the GPOWER group improved over the control and there were no statistically significant differences between the two groups?

Read the study. Here is what the authors wrote: "Although we cannot state unequivocally that, for this specific HIT protocol, heart rate–based training elicited greater improvements in performance and related parameters than power-based training, there is evidence in our data to suggest that this may be so. Analyses inferring about magnitudes (5) show that there is a ‘‘likely’’ beneficial effect of heart rate–based training in comparison with power-based training, particularly with reference to improvements in Wmax and V_ o2max (Figure 1). Given that the performances of elite athletes are separated by small margins that are indiscernible and that cannot be detected with nullhypothesis testing (5,8), it is appropriate to infer about the magnitude of the differences between groups. This approach suggests that there may be advantages in using heart rate compared with power output prescribed training for this specific protocol."

You can complain all you want but that is what the only science on the topic says.

 

[The Gnome]

I appreciate reading thru this thread as it's pretty interesting...but via the science, I think I will just save my money on ALL the gimmicks and ride my bike more...then again, I am way past my prime and don't have the need to find out exactly how badly I am doing...