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

[oldborn]

Nobody replies to a PM faster than I can

nobody

Dude, you are pure gold.
Is there any Sea lions near your place? I never saw them.
You know those fat fish look a like dolphins

 

[acoggan]

So, in your system, you ignore HR?

Yes.

How do all those things like TSS come into this relatively simple PE based system you have described? Why were they developed if the PM is simply there to help the athlete "calibrate" PE?

You seem to be assuming that the precise intensity at which one trains is critical, and that this is the sole advantage of using a powermeter over a heart rate monitor (or just perceived exertion). Neither of these assumptions are correct, which is why I always, e.g., describe the training levels as descriptive, not prescriptive, and draw a distinction between training by power vs. training (and racing!) with a powermeter.

Is there any evidence that your approach results in better benefit to the athlete than doing a HR based approach? Is there any evidence that your approach is not worse than a HR based approach?

Only empirical.

 

[oldborn]

How are they risking their jobs? You're never going to achieve tenure at, e.g., a highly-ranked US university if you only ever publish papers such as this one, but nobody is going to fire you for occasionally publishing a less-than-perfect study in something like the Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research.

IMHO , Dr. Coggan you were suggesting that authors deliberately design/manipulate with study to favor GHEART subjects (for any non-scientific reason, elfishly), which in scientifics circles may lead to at least we can say discredit, in some cases you can be fire as a liar.
Like Jimmy Hoffa

So why authors of this study should risk their reputations/credibillity?

Stay well and Good Night!

 

[M Sport]

"Some critics goes in direction that subjects were not well trained, hmmm 65:14, to 67:22 for 40km TT (before study) is IMHO well trained cyclist results."

so doing a 40km TT indoors and the best time of 65.14 (~24.9 miles, ~22.9 mph avg), I wouldn't say they are well trained. Mybe a CAT 4 at best, more like a CAT 5. (here: example http://www.lambra.org/results/2008/springTT08_r.htm.....)

I agree. One of the first things I looked at in the full text document was the make up of these well trained cyclists. The 40km TT was on braked ergometers that the 'subjects' bikes were attached to. The resistance was to simulate a flat TT, no mention of wind speed so we will assume zero. In my opinion an averag speed of approx 37km/h is not a 'well trained cyclist', in fact I would say that is more of an average cyclist on an indoor trainer.

The other thing I looked at was the subjects body measurements and the wide variation between the average in each group. The control group had body fat percentages of 16% =/- 4. That again in my opinion is not well trained athletes. Mine for instance has never been above 13, and it only hit 13 when I was out with injury for 9 months. Normally it wouldn't go above 11.

I mentioned the average body measurements. If you look at the control group there was up to 15% variation in body weights, 10% variation in w-kg, and significant variations in body fat. The groups statistically were just too far apart.

Also, why were the two riders who didn't want to go in the control group not replaced altogether? This distorts the group in my opinion. Effectively they have put their hand up and said I'm too good to be control so in effect they have distorted the groups. They should have been replaced by two riders chosen at random from another sample group.

In my opinion the sample groups are too small and corrupted, and different. Nothing can be concluded either way.

One thing worth mentioning though for people considering buying powermeters is that they measured power at the start, power at the end of the study, and if you wanted to continue doing this each month to measure your progress you would need a power meter. Go figure.

 

[acoggan]

IMHO , Dr. Coggan you were suggesting that authors deliberately design/manipulate with study to favor GHEART subjects

I did no such thing. I merely pointed out that the design that was chosen contained an inherent bias.

 

[FrankDay]

You seem to be assuming that the precise intensity at which one trains is critical, and that this is the sole advantage of using a powermeter over a heart rate monitor (or just perceived exertion). Neither of these assumptions are correct, which is why I always, e.g., describe the training levels as descriptive, not prescriptive, and draw a distinction between training by power vs. training (and racing!) with a powermeter.

I am not assuming anything of the sort. But, it would appear that many of the advocates of the PM seem to believe that precise intensity monitoring is advantageous. So, if precise measurement of "intensity" of power to the pedals is not an advantage of training with power, exactly what is the advantage?

Only empirical.

In this context, empirical means the same as anecdotal, correct? And, you called this attempt to do the first study to actually measure a benefit to the device "a fools errand" because it failed? You never did answer the question as to how you would design a study.

 

[FrankDay]

Anybody else see a pattern here?

Yes, you are completely incapable of letting sleeping dogs lie.

 

[CoachFergie]

With regards to PM's in general:

All of the athletes that we coach use Powermeters and we rely on them to optimise their training.

Does this mean that we prescribe all of our training on Power?

No

Neither do most coaches. Time, environment, road, track or off road conditions, likely cadence's and many other variables must be factored into the programme. Only a fool would think that you just tell a person to sit on a set wattage and they will win the Tour de France.

From the study we conducted (more specifics about that in a moment) and from our own experience as well as that of other scientists (Lucia and Aldo Sassi are examples) we discovered that PM's are not the be all and end all as some proponents of Power would have everyone believe.

It is only the opponents of power meters that appear to repeat that lie frequently.

Firstly, we noted that despite the vociferous statements to that effect, there was not a single shred of scientific data to support the prescription of training by power. As a result, we decided to conduct our own study. We did not have preconceptions.

That is good, Frank Day insinuated that you went in with a preconceived notion that power would be superior in the study. Glad to see you rose above his standards.

As you can see, for the specific interval session chosen, heart rate seems to be the better option.

All we see is that interval training is better than just riding along.

This does not mean that HR is better for all training sessions. It may well be that for a Tempo session, T-max intervals and others, Power may be better. We simply do not know and until we find out, I suggest you toss a coin.

There are lots of problems with HR as outlined in our manuscript. Keeping readings stable in the field is just one of them.

Hence my comments that HR is redundant compared to power to monitor training and at worst misleading. We know that power is the stimulus for performance on the bike while HR is a response but there is no way to monitor what stimuli are causing the HR response.

There are also lots of problems with Power. Power zones change almost daily with fatigue and more long term with changes in training status.

This is one of the best reasons to use a power meter in the first place. If you can't hit the target range for training rides then you know something is up. One ride is nothing to get concerned about but if a trend forms then something is wrong. Some if you find you are producing more power then you know it may be time to retest FTP or Critical Power and reset training zones or if headed towards a major event you know that things are on track.

Lucia showed this quite succintly with his data from the Banesto team (including that of 5 x TDF champion Miguel Indurain).

Name dropping is so unprofessional.

Power fluctuates by 50-100W over the course of the season whereas HR only 2-3bpm for the equivalent physiological intensity. To overcome this problem requires an aversive test such as a MAP or FTP test (both of which interfere with training).

This was one of the conclusions from Nimmerichter and is again the power meter earning it's keep. This variability is the bonus of the power meter. If power went up 50-100 watts in a season, and I have seen this in junior cyclists, I would be expecting a coaching bonus where we know that if performance is raising heart rate can either go up or down for set thresholds.

So what should we do?

In our lab we look at both HR and Power. Rather than throwing either one out, we look at the relationship between Power and HR. This has led to the development of a submaximal test to evaluate not only training status but also fatigue (Lamberts submaximal cycling test). We have published a fair amount on this topic in recent years and are continuing to evaluate the methods to improve accuracy and reliability.

We test for FTP. I use a 3min and 20min test and use the Critical Power Method. Very easy to do if people have a power meter. Main things I track are L4 to L7 powers of riders and if they are headed upwards I know things are on track and if headed down then we need to reassess things. I use the FTP testing periodically as I find some validity in the Performance Manager in WKO+.

That said, training exclusively on Power is not proven and may not give you as great a training stimulus as training with HR.

Neither is a training stimulus. Frequency, Intensity, Time and Type is the training stimulus.

Specific to the study:

We designed the study very carefully to ensure that the two groups performed identical training sessions with regards to mean loads. We then analysed the data to ensure that this was in fact the case.

They achieved the same workload for the efforts but there was a difference in the pacing of the two experimental groups. This is mentioned in the study so they did not perform similar training.

We speculated that the difference in the training stimulus was due to the very high power in the first 30s of the HR intervals, despite the much lower power in the second two thirds of the HR intervals in comparison to Power.

There is no evidence to show that holding a steady power is in any way advantageous. If you look at the optimal pacing strategy for events from the 4000m pursuit through to a 200km TT, none of them equate to a constant power. The most effective and common power profile is one which has a biphasic response (hard start, steady middle and surge at the end). Carl Foster and Jos De Koning have published extensively on this. Why anyone has come to the conclusion that you should go out and hold a steady power output in intervals and that this is beneficial is beyond my understanding. It goes against all the evidence.

You may be misunderstanding the nature of a 4000m pursuit where you need to produce a large amount of power off the line to get the bike up to speed.

Can you please direct me to a study on a 200km TT as this is not a common distance for Time Trials in cycling.

With regards to the workload during the intervals. MAP is very much dependant on the method used to assess this. In our lab we use a 20W/min continuous ramp protocol, starting at 100W (it is the most common method used in the literature: 25W/min is also very common). Using this protocol, 80% is extremely tough to do 8 x 4min intervals (equates to just over 90% of MHR). So hard that some of the athletes in the group became overtrained despite only 2 sessions per week. The training status of the athletes was well above average and included many of the top provincial MTB and road riders.

That is the MAP protocol I use for my riders and Alex Simmons riders use. Having prescribed 4-8 min efforts at higher percentages of MAP than 80% and a rule of thumb is FTP (60min power) is around 75% of MAP I find your experiences a little puzzling.

The method used (magnitude based inferences) is fairly new (contrary to one of the posts made) and was developed by Professor Will Hopkins (a bit of a stats guru).

I know Will very well and it is appropriate to use the term Stats Nazi. I do also note that much of his research is rejected by MSSE and ends up in JSCR.

It is a very useful tool as it allows us to quantify the effect of the technique being used as opposed to trying to meet the null hypothesis. This is very useful in training studies and performance research as the margin between winning and being an also ran is often well below 1% (well below the ability of null hypothesis stats to detect). If you look at the studies conducted on:

Powercranks
Massage
Compression garments
etc.

None of the studies have been able to prove a benificial effect using null hypothesis stats yet athletes will tell you that the benefit is unequivocably there.

It looks like a lowering of the bar which means we will see more and more of these studies bumped from the physiology to sports medicine to sport science to strength & conditioning journals. What journal was it first submitted to?

 

[acoggan]

it would appear that many of the advocates of the PM seem to believe that precise intensity monitoring is advantageous.

I am unaware of any prominent powermeter advocate who believes this to be of critical importance.

it if precise measurement of "intensity" of power to the pedals is not an advantage of training with power, exactly what is the advantage?

Fergie has covered most, if not all, of them previously in this thread and other threads. In a nutshell, however, the advantage of training (and racing!) with a powermeter is that you are directly measuring the factor that you are attempting to improve via physical training. This allows you to "fine tune" your training program to best meet the demands of a given event to a degree that cannot be matched using any other metric.

you called this attempt to do the first study to actually measure a benefit to the device "a fools errand" because it failed?

No. I consider attempting to differentiate between two very similar training programs applied for only 4 wk to a small number of individuals already engaged in endurance training to be a fool's errand.

You never did answer the question as to how you would design a study.

Since the question is a highly practical one, I'd start by having the subjects do their training out on the open road, instead of in the artificial environment of a laboratory. Moreover, I'd use a cross-over design with an adequate wash-out period between treatments. Finally, I'd have the subjects execute their intervals the way a coach would actually prescribe them (so probably no difference for the heart rate group, but a markedly different approach for the powermeter group).

Despite the above, at the end of the day I'd be surprised if one could demonstrate a signficant difference, at least not without using such an enormous sample size that the relevance to any one individual would be moot...

 

[CoachFergie]

I am not assuming anything of the sort. But, it would appear that many of the advocates of the PM seem to believe that precise intensity monitoring is advantageous. So, if precise measurement of "intensity" of power to the pedals is not an advantage of training with power, exactly what is the advantage?

You are assuming that every person who buys a power meter knows exactely what to do with them.

Advantages? I can pull up a power file that Aldo Sassi put up for Ivan Basso from the 2009 Giro and see power, heart rate, cadence and altitude data.

So if I am training a rider for this event what does the cadence or heart rate tell me that I can use for my guy?

Power can tell me the demands of the stage and what level of efforts on the climbs he will need to prepare for.

We can assess the rider to see where his power to weight sits in relation to a 2 time Giro winner and compare it across different durations so we can ensure that they don't have too much short term power and inadequate med and long term power.

We can monitor within the race to ensure that power delivery is appropriate within a stage and they are conserving energy adequately where possible and pacing their efforts well over the whole stage.

Can't actually tell you what Ivan's HR was at the Giro because he didn't wear a strap in most mountain stages. From a training ride over 4 big climbs it was an average of 168bpm. How is that number of any help to my guy?

 

[FrankDay]

Fergie has covered most, if not all, of them previously in this thread and other threads. In a nutshell, however, the advantage of training (and racing!) with a powermeter is that you are directly measuring the factor that you are attempting to improve via physical training. This allows you to "fine tune" your training program to best meet the demands of a given event to a degree that cannot be matched using any other metric.

That all sounds very impressive. But, as you know, there is absolutely zero evidence to suggest that this works as you theorize. In fact, racing results (world champions not using the device) and the study in question both suggest that it doesn't work as "advertised".

No. I consider attempting to differentiate between two very similar training programs applied for only 4 wk to a small number of individuals already engaged in endurance training to be a fool's errand.

Even if there is a suggestion of a difference? I can see how one might have said that before the study was done, expecting there to be no difference but the results were not quite what was expected. Not a fools errand in my book.

Since the question is a highly practical one, I'd start by having the subjects do their training out on the open road, instead of in the artificial environment of a laboratory.

So hours in the saddle on the road are more valuable than those in a laboratory? Do you have a reference for that? Besides, aren't we looking for a difference between groups? What difference does it make whether they are on the road or in the lab as long as they do the same amount of work?

… Finally, I'd have the subjects execute their intervals the way a coach would actually prescribe them (so probably no difference for the heart rate group, but a markedly different approach for the powermeter group).

Do you mean to tell me that you believe that there are zero coaches out there (or self coached athletes) who perform intervals using their PM as described in the study? I would be surprised if what they did in the study wasn't closer to the real world norm than what you describe.

Despite the above, at the end of the day I'd be surprised if one could demonstrate a signficant difference, at least not without using such an enormous sample size that the relevance to any one individual would be moot...

I am sorry. Are you saying that a study that requires a large sample size to show a significant difference has no relevance to the individual athlete? Did you really just say that? So, people are criticizing this study because they think the sample size is too small while you would criticize another study because the sample size was too big. Just what is the Goldilocks sample size number for a study such as this? Isn't the real test, not the sample size, but, what the statistics say?

 

[acoggan]

Yes, you are completely incapable of letting sleeping dogs lie.

I was referring, however, to the numbers.

 

[FrankDay]

You are assuming that every person who buys a power meter knows exactely what to do with them.

LOL. The typical user doesn't have a clue. To them it is just a number to brag about to their friends and fret over at night, if that.

Can't actually tell you what Ivan's HR was at the Giro because he didn't wear a strap in most mountain stages. From a training ride over 4 big climbs it was an average of 168bpm. How is that number of any help to my guy?

LOL. Help your guy? I guess it might give him a clue as to what effort Basso was at (if he knew the LT and max HR for the individual) for that wattage for comparison purposes. I suspect that number would be of some use to Ivan Basso and his coach (unless he was coached by you cause you would ignore it).

 

[FrankDay]

I was referring, however, to the numbers.

I was referring to the pattern I saw. You asked.

 

[ihavenolimbs]

Mad Kiwi love and kudos on a great interpretation of the study.

Same to you Fergie, and thanks!

The way I prescribe intervals by power is to have the rider perform intervals till the power drops off to a certain level. This is covered in Allen and Coggan (2010) but I actually picked up this method from an old Fred Hatfield book on body building.

Yeah, I do the same. Before power meters there were hills. My standard VO2max intervals used to be riding up a hill for ~4mins (until I reach my predetermined landmark), then riding back down, and repeating until I am unable to get within 10% of my initial time. Since the work required for a given altitude-gain is fairly consistent, within a session, this is basically training with power too.

And now that I have a PM, I can only see the extra accuracy it provides as a win. That Frank and Oldborn are attacking PMs makes no sense to me, better information allows one to make better decisions. All this study shows is that if you use fail to use this information, and make poor decisions, it's your own fault.

 

[FrankDay]

That Frank and Oldborn are attacking PMs makes no sense to me, better information allows one to make better decisions. All this study shows is that if you use fail to use this information, and make poor decisions, it's your own fault.

I am not attacking the PM. I am attacking the notion that this different way of measuring training intensity is somehow better and, if better, how much better to justify the cost. So, now we know that if someone doesn't properly use the information they will do worse. But, show me the study that if someone actually uses the information they will do better. Where is it? There is still no proof of that notion.

 

[CoachFergie]

LOL. The typical user doesn't have a clue. To them it is just a number to brag about to their friends and fret over at night, if that.

You have any evidence of that claim?

LOL. Help your guy? I guess it might give him a clue as to what effort Basso was at (if he knew the LT and max HR for the individual) for that wattage for comparison purposes. I suspect that number would be of some use to Ivan Basso and his coach (unless he was coached by you cause you would ignore it).

How would knowing what percentage of the LT or Max HR be of any use in comparison to others? People have different efficiencies and different tolerances to work levels. The Germans were very dogmatic about 4 mmol of lactate being the anaerobic threshold till studies showed some athletes could sustain 10mmol for up to 60min.

If it was of some use to Basso why did he not wear a HR strap in the Giro? From the training ride we see again far more variance in the power data than heart rate as shown by Nimmerichter etal. (2011). Lim etal. (2011) showed that times spent in wattage zones were not associated with times spent in heart rate zones in a stage race. Wattage being a more precise measure of training and racing efforts.

The other factor being what the power meter tells us is the stimulus going into the pedals. We have no way of determining just how much of the figure from the heart rate monitor is actually being used to push the pedals.

 

[CoachFergie]

I am not attacking the PM. I am attacking the notion that this different way of measuring training intensity is somehow better and, if better, how much better to justify the cost. So, now we know that if someone doesn't properly use the information they will do worse. But, show me the study that if someone actually uses the information they will do better. Where is it? There is still no proof of that notion.

Nimmerichter etal. (2011) has shown that there is a higher variance in the wattage data and therefore a more precise measurement of intensity than heart rate. Heart rate doesn't tell you the work demands of cycling. I can't go to someone and say you need to ride a hill at X heart rate but I can tell them they need to ride at Y W/kg to be competitive.

Worse? Where is the evidence of that. In the Swart study both HR and Power groups improved over the control group. The only way they go worse is if they don't do any riding at all but that has nothing to do with whether they use a power meter, heart rate or go by feel. More Frank Day nonsense.

 

[oldborn]

That Frank and Oldborn are attacking PMs makes no sense to me, better information allows one to make better decisions. All this study shows is that if you use fail to use this information, and make poor decisions, it's your own fault.

The problem lies when someone claim that PM tool approach is ultimate one.
Also let me quote Matt Allyn:
"Power meters, of course, still have their place in cycling. If you're working to improve your peak power, there's no easier way to gauge your progress. Power meters can also provide more immediate feedback and won't be thrown off in hot weather (high temps can raise your heart rate and potentially throw off a workout)"

"I have been reading the posts on HR and wattage, with a great deal of interest, and have held my reply (in order to improve my SpO2 !).
I believe this can be easily summed up by a comment you expressed earlier- there is a place in training for both. The key is to understand the purpose of the particular training set.

If the purpose is to create a specific level of metabolic stress, to improve basic endurance, and release hormones and create adaptation to build a stronger cardiovascular system, then a priority to heart rate seems to be the most practical monitor.

If the purpose is to build functional strength, and tolerance to specific loads by creating a specified stress on the muscular function, then either wattage or speed would seem to be the best monitor.

Technically speaking, the speed a rider attains on a given course under uniform conditions is just as accurate a gage of load, and much less expensive!"

Above is my previous post about power.

Where do you seen attacking PM?
I am attacking dogmatic, hilarius inside box thinking
I am attacking everyone who claims that his method is best and everyother are fool.
If you can please precise me where i am attacking PM and his role in sport?

This SA study just show us that those kind of "coaches" are "beaten" in their arguments and hilarius comments.

Thanks!
Stay well!

 

[oldborn]

Please is there any study, evidence which gonna show us that measuring progress or monitoring sucsess with PM is going to make as faster and better then measuring and monitoring that progress with HR or PE?

I am hardly waiting to see it!
Until then...

 

[M Sport]

Please is there any study, evidence which gonna show us that measuring progress or monitoring sucsess with PM is going to make as faster and better then measuring and monitoring that progress with HR or PE?

The logical conclusion to that is what are you going to measure with to ascertain how your training is going when you only use PE and HR? We already know HR may only vary by 3bpm in elite athletes when the Watts has changed by 50 or more in each 3 month period.

How do put a tangible measure on PE to determine whether you have actually improved??

 

[FrankDay]

How do put a tangible measure on PE to determine whether you have actually improved??

People seemed to be able to do that before the days of PM's but, hey, if that is the use you want to put it to, to simply measure to see if you have improved or not, cool. It will work great for that as long as the only metric you are interested in measuring improvement in is power.

However, it you also want to claim that using a PM in some fashion or another will help you to improve or race better than any other way then show us the proof.

 

[FrankDay]

I can't go to someone and say you need to ride a hill at X heart rate but I can tell them they need to ride at Y W/kg to be competitive.

Sure you can, you just don't. That is essentially what this study did. Those who trained by HR improved more in power and Vo2max than those who did those intervals using power.

 

[CoachFergie]

People seemed to be able to do that before the days of PM's but, hey, if that is the use you want to put it to, to simply measure to see if you have improved or not, cool. It will work great for that as long as the only metric you are interested in measuring improvement in is power.

However, it you also want to claim that using a PM in some fashion or another will help you to improve or race better than any other way then show us the proof.

Only person making that claim is you Frank.

 

[FrankDay]

Only person making that claim is you Frank.

So, you have your athletes spend all that money just so you can tell if they are improving or not?