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

[CoachFergie]

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

No.

My riders make the decision to purchase a power meter because they want to know the exact demands of the events they wish to be competitive in.

They want a precise measure of their ability in relation to those demands.

They want a precise measure of how well they are matching those demands in training.

They want a precise measure to ensure they are not overtraining.

They want a precise measure that isn't affecting by other variables.

They want a precise measure that can be used to test equipment and riding positions on the bike.

If I was any less professional as a coach I would tell them not to buy a power meter as they make me far more accountable. I could tell a rider that their time trial times had improved from winter to summer and pat myself back as a coach but the power meter would tell the true story. What other metric would be as precise?

I have never yet told a rider they have to buy a power meter or said I won't coach someone if they don't have a meter. I do show them the data we collect and how it can help them to prepare for events, and prescribing training intensity is only one aspect of that, and they usually make the decision to invest in one. One of my riders just spent NZ$6,000 on a SRM but another spent NZ$800 and brought a second hand wired powertap.

 

[ihavenolimbs]

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.

A PM won't allow an individual to exceed their physiological limits, and (I assume) numerous athletes have achieved performances very close to their physiological limits without PMs. But the value of a PM is that it can allow an athlete to more quickly learn how to train, since they get high-quality feedback on what does and does not work. A HRM is much worse for this (as CoachFergie happily cites).

My view is that a power meter combined with good background reading (like one of Coggan's books), or a good coach, should allow an endurance athlete to learn to train more efficiently, and achieve elite-level power, in much less time (vs. using an HRM, or no biofeedback at all). An approximate figure used is that it typically takes about seven years of training for an untrained person to reach an elite level, whether the sport be karate, rugby, cycling, etc. I would think it would take less than two years for a smart PM user to learn to train efficiently and reach elite level power (physiology allowing).

It took me a lot, lot longer than two years, using just a HRM, but I wasn't training very smart.

But there are clearly a lack of studies supporting this. The problem is that, to demonstrate my point, it would probably take a longitudinal study, lasting many years -- at least for the controls -- and using expensive PMs and coaching.

Yet it is comparatively easy for a post-graduate student to perform a poorly-designed, four-week experiment showing that misusing PMs puts you at a disadvantage vs. training (essentially) by PE.

 

[Colonel]

Just to respond to a couple of your "drive by" comments...



You seem to have me confused with someone else, as I have never personally attacked you or anyone else in the scientific community. Feel free to try to come up with an example to prove this statement wrong.

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?t=8839&page=3

Another for you

 

[CoachFergie]

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?t=8839&page=3

Another for you

Andy wrote: Hey, now there's a novel idea...

That's some badass s**t right there Andy, totally changed the way I think about you

 

[FrankDay]

No.

My riders make the decision to purchase a power meter because they want to know the exact demands of the events they wish to be competitive in.

If they are not competitive now how does knowing where they are now tell them what it takes to be competitive in their event? If your athlete doesn't have a PM, how do you help them to know?

They want a precise measure of their ability in relation to those demands.

How do you help them in this regards if they don't have a PM?

They want a precise measure of how well they are matching those demands in training.

I thought training was supposed to be preparing for the demands of the competition, not matching the demands of competition in training.

They want a precise measure to ensure they are not overtraining.

And, the evidence this is a more precise measure of overtraining than other methods of determining this? How do you monitor this with your athletes who do not have a PM?

They want a precise measure that isn't affecting by other variables.

A PM isn't affected by any other variables? Really? Never goes out of calibration? Not temperature dependent? Batteries never go bad? Wireless pickups are perfect?

They want a precise measure that can be used to test equipment and riding positions on the bike.

How do your athletes without a PM do this? Do you have any evidence they do a lesser job in this regard because of this lack?

If I was any less professional as a coach I would tell them not to buy a power meter as they make me far more accountable. I could tell a rider that their time trial times had improved from winter to summer and pat myself back as a coach but the power meter would tell the true story. What other metric would be as precise?

Time? Or, their relative improvement in relation to their peers? Aren't those the only real measures of your worth as a coach and the measure of the result of their hard work, how much they improve their racing compared to the other athletes and coaches out there working just as hard?

I have never yet told a rider they have to buy a power meter or said I won't coach someone if they don't have a meter. I do show them the data we collect and how it can help them to prepare for events, and prescribing training intensity is only one aspect of that, and they usually make the decision to invest in one. One of my riders just spent NZ$6,000 on a SRM but another spent NZ$800 and brought a second hand wired powertap.

And, these riders have told you that they made these purchases solely for the reasons you give above and not because they believe the purchase will eventually result in improved training benefits? In view of what you gave above as reasons to get the device, do you believe the $6,000 purchase, because it will be more precise, was a wiser purchase.

 

[FrankDay]

A PM won't allow an individual to exceed their physiological limits, and (I assume) numerous athletes have achieved performances very close to their physiological limits without PMs. But the value of a PM is that it can allow an athlete to more quickly learn how to train, since they get high-quality feedback on what does and does not work. A HRM is much worse for this (as CoachFergie happily cites).

All I ask is for some scientific support for such a statement.

My view is that a power meter combined with good background reading (like one of Coggan's books), or a good coach, should allow an endurance athlete to learn to train more efficiently, and achieve elite-level power, in much less time (vs. using an HRM, or no biofeedback at all). An approximate figure used is that it typically takes about seven years of training for an untrained person to reach an elite level, whether the sport be karate, rugby, cycling, etc. I would think it would take less than two years for a smart PM user to learn to train efficiently and reach elite level power (physiology allowing).

That is a very sound argument (except for the last sentence). Now if there were only some scientific support for it. Regarding the last sentence, truly you can't possibly believe this. If you do, please provide even some anecdotal support, let alone scientific support, for the proposition.

But there are clearly a lack of studies supporting this. The problem is that, to demonstrate my point, it would probably take a longitudinal study, lasting many years -- at least for the controls -- and using expensive PMs and coaching.

No, your study wouldn't have to last longer than 2 years.

Yet it is comparatively easy for a post-graduate student to perform a poorly-designed, four-week experiment showing that misusing PMs puts you at a disadvantage vs. training (essentially) by PE.

If you say so. However, the problem remains that there are still zero studies showing that proper use of a PM is evan as good as a device such as a HRM, let alone better. The only thing we can all agree on that they do reasonably well is measure power. Whether having that information results in any measurable advantages to the athlete is the question.

 

[CoachFergie]

If they are not competitive now how does knowing where they are now tell them what it takes to be competitive in their event?

The gap between current state and goal state. It helps to determine a realistic time frame.

If your athlete doesn't have a PM, how do you help them to know?

We have to settle for less precision.

How do you help them in this regards if they don't have a PM?

We have to settle for less precision.

I thought training was supposed to be preparing for the demands of the competition, not matching the demands of competition in training.

Some might say they are same thing. Principle of specificity.

And, the evidence this is a more precise measure of overtraining than other methods of determining this? How do you monitor this with your athletes who do not have a PM?

We have to settle for less precision.

A PM isn't affected by any other variables? Really? Never goes out of calibration? Not temperature dependent? Batteries never go bad? Wireless pickups are perfect?

If one gets their power meter serviced regularly, checks the batteries at regular intervals and perform a calibration before every ride (a 5 sec job) then there are no issues unless you ride up Mountains in Spain or are a MIT student performance FTP tests on rollers aye Frank. I have not heard of any pick up issues from power meters using the ANT+ system and frequent numerous power meter forums.

How do your athletes without a PM do this? Do you have any evidence they do a lesser job in this regard because of this lack?

I sure do Frank, we tested different wheels, positions and helmets on the indoor track in Invercargill. The variance between power was higher and allowed more precise measure's to be made than either lap times or HR. We were able to pick up a subtle difference between a Mavic IO and a Zip 808. About as subtle as the differences Bike Tech Review found between a Hed Trispoke and a Zipp 808 in the wind tunnel.

But to answer your question without the power meter we have to settle for less precision.

Time? Or, their relative improvement in relation to their peers? Aren't those the only real measures of your worth as a coach and the measure of the result of their hard work, how much they improve their racing compared to the other athletes and coaches out there working just as hard?

Neither time nor placings are as precise as an improvement in power. As mentioned this is the difference between Winter and Summer which in NZ can be as much as 30 degrees so a big affect on performance. We could compare results but who knows their opponents could have been a using a GimmickCrank and the result was due to them going backwards not my awesome coaching.

And, these riders have told you that they made these purchases solely for the reasons you give above and not because they believe the purchase will eventually result in improved training benefits?

Yup, brings a tear to my eye that so many people want to quantify the time they spend riding a bike.

In view of what you gave above as reasons to get the device, do you believe the $6,000 purchase, because it will be more precise, was a wiser purchase.

I still get the same data as I got from his NZ$1800 second hand wireless Powertap but I will get race data now as he has carbon wheels for race day.

He had the choice of that or three months in Spain for his Partner's Sister's Wedding. Considering the smoking hotness of his partner I think he must really want that extra precision with his training measurement

 

[Boeing]

why is every coachfargo reply a bloody press conference with herself?

 

[CoachFergie]

Well it would be rude to cherry pick my arguments.

 

[Martin318is]

I don't understand this seeming opposition to Power meters.

Its relatively easy to work out a range of Watts per Kg that you would need to be competetive at a particular event, especially for time trial style events or the track. Then you just need to work out what you are capable of right now and create a training plan for improvement until you are able to meet or exceed those values.

Yes, you can create a roughly similar training plan with heart rate and speed or whatever, but why would you when you could use a power meter instead? Its simply this type of statement:

"To win this event a rider needs to do 18Watts per Kg in the first 8 seconds and then sustain 8 watts per kg for the remaining distance"

Who ever says:

"To win this event a rider needs to sustain 158 beats per minute" (or some similar value)

 

[oldborn]

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??

Good morning!
Sorry for delaying but i just feed my cat.
How do i know i am improving just with PE?
Very simple, time, speed, and more important how do i feel over same track, race or distance
I am having Nationals in Classic Duathlon (10-40-5) tomorow, and i will track my progress or not progress, based on last year time on same track.
I will let you know.

Speed is acurate as PM IMHO

 

[oldborn]

I don't understand this seeming opposition to Power meters.

Its relatively easy to work out a range of Watts per Kg that you would need to be competetive at a particular event, especially for time trial style events or the track. Then you just need to work out what you are capable of right now and create a training plan for improvement until you are able to meet or exceed those values.

Yes, you can create a roughly similar training plan with heart rate and speed or whatever, but why would you when you could use a power meter instead? Its simply this type of statement:

"To win this event a rider needs to do 18Watts per Kg in the first 8 seconds and then sustain 8 watts per kg for the remaining distance"

Who ever says:

"To win this event a rider needs to sustain 158 beats per minute" (or some similar value)

You are wright.
It is not Q to use PM (it should be used) or questioning his accuracy, i am questioning obsolute, dogmatic and non evidence statement that PM alone will make you a better rider.
I am questioning every coach or scientist who make sucha a claims, and guess what i am having some evidences that training with PM is not superior/ultimate over HR

Off course there is lot of Q to be answer and hardly waiting for them, we can learn something from it.
We can not learning from just some (self proclaimed) mainstream coaching theory, cos sucha a thing does not exist.

Stay well!

 

[CoachFergie]

All I ask is for some scientific support for such a statement.

Nimmerichter.

That is a very sound argument (except for the last sentence). Now if there were only some scientific support for it. Regarding the last sentence, truly you can't possibly believe this. If you do, please provide even some anecdotal support, let alone scientific support, for the proposition.

I tell my riders six months to get a decent amount of files and to really get a handle on what training and racing with power, not by power which really negates Swart's study totally because we don't train to set numbers because in racing we don't race to specific numbers, and what power isn't.

If you say so. However, the problem remains that there are still zero studies showing that proper use of a PM is evan as good as a device such as a HRM, let alone better.

Nimmerichter.

The only thing we can all agree on that they do reasonably well is measure power. Whether having that information results in any measurable advantages to the athlete is the question.

We don't assess the effectiveness of how you lose weight based on what type of measure of obesity is used. We don't measure the effectiveness of performance enhancement based on how performance is measured. The training adaptations will have occurred no matter how we measure them. It is just that some of us prefer to know if those improvements are real (wattage) or smoke and mirrors (HR, time, speed etc).

 

[CoachFergie]

Who ever says:

"To win this event a rider needs to sustain 158 beats per minute" (or some similar value)

Sir, Sir, SIR! I believe I can answer that one!

 

[CoachFergie]

It should be mentioned that the majority of riders with some experience with a power meter or coaches with an understanding of power meters don't actually encourage their riders to stare transfixed at the meter while racing and training. On track the majority ride with them behind the saddle and download the data at the end without having once looked at the head unit. I certainly discourage riders from looking at any type of computer in a road race and a noteworthy anecdote is the riders in the omnium at Track Worlds in the elimination race were too scared to look down at the black box on their stem to see the red lights indicating they were out because the racing was so tight.

Think you might like to know that Frank, that many people spend up to NZ$10,000 on a cycle computer and don't even look at it while riding

 

[oldborn]

Spending 6000 $ on PM semanticly speaking should be 30 times better than top end HRM, and therefore gives us 30 times better outcome
Powerocide, welness, fitness guru kind of aproach for sure.

For that kind of money i would choose heart, legs and lungs transplatation in Kenya from some poor *******

I would like to see what is so worht in that PM, and Swart study for sure will not be accepted with smile in SRM.

Preparing rider for specific overload just looking at Basso PM files from Giro or training are worst thing what coach should do.

My really question is why PM industry did not order another study which gonna show us maybe different results if they are so sure about its supremacy.
Maybe they new something else, maybe they just did not care for customers, who knows? It is for sure world wide conspiracy against me

Anyway nice debate

P.S. Barcelona will kill MUFC for sure

 

[oldborn]

A PM won't allow an individual to exceed their physiological limits, and (I assume) numerous athletes have achieved performances very close to their physiological limits without PMs. But the value of a PM is that it can allow an athlete to more quickly learn how to train, since they get high-quality feedback on what does and does not work. A HRM is much worse for this (as CoachFergie happily cites).

Well Swart study show us little bit different thing, do not you agree?

My view is that a power meter combined with good background reading (like one of Coggan's books), or a good coach, should allow an endurance athlete to learn to train more efficiently, and achieve elite-level power, in much less time (vs. using an HRM, or no biofeedback at all). An approximate figure used is that it typically takes about seven years of training for an untrained person to reach an elite level, whether the sport be karate, rugby, cycling, etc. I would think it would take less than two years for a smart PM user to learn to train efficiently and reach elite level power (physiology allowing).

Yes and this is just your view, which i respect.

But there are clearly a lack of studies supporting this. The problem is that, to demonstrate my point, it would probably take a longitudinal study, lasting many years -- at least for the controls -- and using expensive PMs and coaching.

Very good point, personnaly i do not need study which gonna show us this, i just beleive in another way to solve the problem.

Yet it is comparatively easy for a post-graduate student to perform a poorly-designed, four-week experiment showing that misusing PMs puts you at a disadvantage vs. training (essentially) by PE.

I heard that SA scientists are very good in martial arts, so...

 

[oldborn]

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

Oh i see sorry Dr. Coggan, you finally pick my words.
I am happy there is no more "lost in translation" parts and we can print on our t-shirts "united colours of power nation" moto

Stay well!
I must feed my cat

 

[FrankDay]

Nimmerichter.

LOL. Remember this thread?

 

[CoachFergie]

LOL. Remember this thread?

Post #2 was bang on the money.

 

[acoggan]

Andy wrote: Hey, now there's a novel idea...

That's some badass s**t right there Andy, totally changed the way I think about you

Oh my, yes, how terrrible of me: to actually make a joke when, after endless discussion of an issue, someone finally comes around and agrees with the position I had been espousing all along. I should be flogged for displaying such a sense of humor.

 

[function]

"To win this event a rider needs to do 18Watts per Kg in the first 8 seconds and then sustain 8 watts per kg for the remaining distance"

Who ever says:

"To win this event a rider needs to sustain 158 beats per minute" (or some similar value)

No, they'd probably use a clock (pace), that's how records are also measured.

 

[function]

What I don't do, and what I've never seen anyone advocate, is trying to tightly constrain your power within a specific "zone" even if, e.g., you're improving such that it is becoming easier. Yet, this seems to be the very strawman the study at hand appears to be designed to address...

Are you're saying that most PM training protocols don't espouse an isopower interval methodology? I read it that the study is comparing constant vs variable intervals as one of the unintentional differences between the two, unintentional because nothing stops people from following the same variable approach with a PM.

 

[FrankDay]

I merely pointed out that the design that was chosen contained an inherent bias.

Why don't we look at what the study did and what we find on the internet as telling people how to do intervals using a PM.

First this: www.training4cyclists.com/power-meter-training-made-simple/
"Suggestions for interval training:
5 x (6min 320Watts + 4min 160Watts)

2 x (15min 320Watts + 10min 160Watts)

Not that difficult, right?"

Or this:
From Wikipedia on cycling power meters "Power meters provide instant feedback to the rider about their performance and measure their actual output; heart rate monitors measure the physiological effect of effort and therefore ramp up more slowly. Thus, an athlete performing "interval" training while using a power meter can instantly see that they are producing 300 watts, for example, instead of waiting for their heart rate to climb to a certain point."

Or I found this one especially interesting: Analyzing Interval workouts using power data by Andrew Coggan

"Interval training has been used by athletes in practically all endurance sports for decades. In many cases, designing and interpreting such workouts with respect to their specific physiological demands is relatively straightforward. For example, constant-intensity efforts of, say, 3-8 min duration with a work:rest ratio of 1:0.5 to 1:2 would, if done at an adequate intensity, be expected to place significant strain upon the O2 transport system, and thus contribute to an improvement in VO2max."

Now. it appears to me that the study we are discussing simply compared two different ways of doing intervals including the most straight forward method described by Dr. Coggan himself. And, Dr. Coggan is correct, the stimulus did result in an increase in VO2max in the PM group. Yet, he is here complaining that this method contains an inherent flaw because he knows it is less effective than doing a similar workout using HR as the feedback tool (why didn't he mention this issue in his book or on the web page?) and complaining that the study worthless because nobody worth anything would ever recommend such a flawed interval technique.

I look forward to seeing where Dr. Coggan anywhere in any of his published writings has previously addressed this issue or that where any of his "more complicated" interval suggestions are the "equivalent" of the interval provided by the HRM such that he might be able to design a study using recommendations he has previously made that might get the same results (or, possibly exceed them) as the HRM group.

 

[fabramowski]

FrankDay....the earth is flat....get over it...when you can achieve what Dr. Coggan has let us know....it like he said she said...blah, blah.........