The importance of crank length to the cyclist.

[CoachFergie]

Remember, the object here is to go faster.

Bradley Wiggins achieved his best World Championships TT result by going slower at the start.

There is zero scientific evidence that measuring power in training or racing aids in that end. Qualifies as an unproven gimmick in my book.

And there is zero evidence that measuring body weight has any effect on losing body fat. Measuring just offers us a way to quantify the results of whatever process or piece of equipment we have chosen to experiment with.

 

[Tapeworm]

There is zero scientific evidence that measuring power in training or racing aids in that end. Qualifies as an unproven gimmick in my book.

What does then Frank?

Hmmm, wonder how they quantify effort in all those cycling studies?

If only there was some way to measure the effort of the cyclist!

 

[FrankDay]

What does then Frank?

Hmmm, wonder how they quantify effort in all those cycling studies?

If only there was some way to measure the effort of the cyclist!

The issue is not whether measuring power can be useful, it can be particularly useful in scientific studies of cyclists. The question becomes whether having that information can be useful to the athlete to improve outcome from what could be achieved before this information was widely available.

While it is generally assumed that because this measure of effort is more precise than say measuring HR or the subjective perceived effort that improved outcome would be the natural result. But, this has never been proven scientifically. In fact, the only study that I know of that has looked at this question found no improvement.

Therefore, from a scientific perspective, the use of a power meter (dare I say gimmick meter?) for training or racing is no better for improving outcome than using all sorts of stuff like nasal strips, Q-rings, power bracelets, PowerCranks, etc. All of these things may have some benefit but it has yet to be proven scientifically.

Take your car. It is possible to measure engine power output real time and show it to the driver. But, no car manufacturer makes that available to you. Why? Well, what would you do with it? Of more importance for everyday living is what your fuel economy is or how much fuel is in the tank and that is generally available. But power? Not even in the race cars.

The potential for something being useful is quite a bit different from it actually being useful and having been proven useful. Unfortunately, in sports, much of what we do has never been proven scientifically to be effective as there are simply too many variables or benefits come too slowly to be easily studied in a controlled setting.

 

[Shady87]

I'm wondering if anyone can find a scientific study which proves that round wheels are better than square ones?

 

[CoachFergie]

The issue is not whether measuring power can be useful, it can be particularly useful in scientific studies of cyclists. The question becomes whether having that information can be useful to the athlete to improve outcome from what could be achieved before this information was widely available.

A wee tip. Measuring an outcome isn't meant to improve outcomes.

While it is generally assumed that because this measure of effort is more precise than say measuring HR or the subjective perceived effort that improved outcome would be the natural result.

Ummmm, hours earlier you were criticising Hunter Allen (and rightly so) for suggesting that improvement couldn't happen if it wasn't measured

But, this has never been proven scientifically. In fact, the only study that I know of that has looked at this question found no improvement.

A study that compared a group training looking at one number and a group looking at another number that found no difference between groups. Big surprise. No wonder it only found a home in JSCR. Could have compared a group watching Family Guy with a group watching the Simpsons and got the same result.

Therefore, from a scientific perspective, the use of a power meter (dare I say gimmick meter?) for training or racing is no better for improving outcome than using all sorts of stuff like nasal strips, Q-rings, power bracelets, PowerCranks, etc. All of these things may have some benefit but it has yet to be proven scientifically.

Take your car. It is possible to measure engine power output real time and show it to the driver. But, no car manufacturer makes that available to you. Why? Well, what would you do with it? Of more importance for everyday living is what your fuel economy is or how much fuel is in the tank and that is generally available. But power? Not even in the race cars.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formula_One_car

Loving the contempt you have for people here Frank. Note how many times Kilowatts and Horsepower is mentioned.

http://www.ford.com/suvs/escape/

First vehicle from the website lists 240-hp engine.

Face it Frank, you don't know what you are talking about. Power is a measure of work. It is valid and it is reliable. Try to undercut it all you can because you can't prove that short cranks or Gimmickcranks increase power at all. Keep going! It's really amusing

 

[FrankDay]

A wee tip. Measuring an outcome isn't meant to improve outcomes.

Are you acknowledging that a power meter (gimmick meter, to some) cannot be used to improve the athlete above what can be done without it? If so, for what reason should the athlete shell out those $1-5,000?

I might point out that "going faster" was the major reason to get one according to a manufacturer at interbike this year and I suspect it is the major expectation of the typical owner. Just what is the benefit that comes to the athlete from owning a GM (beyond downloading and analyzing the data being "fun")?

 

[FrankDay]

Back on topic. This weekend should be a good test for short cranks since I am sure the typical reader of this is saying, but how would I climb on short cranks since I would lose all that leverage? Well, this weekend we should find out.

Drew Peterson is doing the Everest Challenge race/ride (200 miles, 28,000 ft climbing) this weekend on 110mm PowerCranks. Last year I believe he did the race on 175mm (or longer) PowerCranks. He is in the Cat5 category and last year his time was 6:42:16 for the first day and 5:05:14 for the second day giving a 11:47:30 total, winning his group and coming in 26th overall.

The race results can be found here www.everestchallenge.com. If you click on the current results before the race starts you will see last years results.

If he goes faster it would suggest that very short cranks do not affect climbing ability at all, if one is geared properly (he has changed his gearing some with this change). If he goes slower, then we will have to wait for his report before making a judgment because lots of things can slow you down.

Anyhow, should give an interesting data point for this discussion.

 

[CoachFergie]

Are you acknowledging that a power meter (gimmick meter, to some) cannot be used to improve the athlete above what can be done without it? If so, for what reason should the athlete shell out those $1-5,000?

Staggers me that some people can't tell the difference between a tool that measures power and a training method that targets an improvement in power.

I might point out that "going faster" was the major reason to get one according to a manufacturer at interbike this year and I suspect it is the major expectation of the typical owner.

Staggers me that people confuse marketing hype with science.

Just what is the benefit that comes to the athlete from owning a GM (beyond downloading and analyzing the data being "fun")?

One can perform a real test of equipment, aerodynamics and work performed while cycling.

 

[CoachFergie]

Anyhow, should give an interesting data point for this discussion.

Just one data point and no way to determine if it was the cranks, the training, the diet, motivation, the colour socks he wore or if he watched Simpsons or Family Guy while doing wind training sessions. But the good thing is you could probably submit to Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research for publication.

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Would have loved to see Hunter Allen give the same presentation at ACSM. That slide undoes a lot of the good work scientists and coaches by demoting a power meter to just another method of chasing financial margins.

I think you are being a little harsh. All cycling products and services are a business in one way, shape or form.

Yes #2 could have been worded better on the slide but I think the point is that an objective measure such as power output is a valuable means to assess whether or not what you are doing is working or not, and to quantify by how much. Otherwise you might be guessing and make poor(er) training decisions.

There is another (smaller) factor, that being when you start to measure something involving human input and the human is aware of the new measurement, it does also tend to change behaviour.

I think there are far more compelling reasons for "selling power" that could have been highlighted on such a slide.

 

[CoachFergie]

I think you are being a little harsh. All cycling products and services are a business in one way, shape or form.

I think not. If one makes a statement in a public forum then they make themselves open to be called on it.

Yes #2 could have been worded better on the slide but I think the point is that an objective measure such as power output is a valuable means to assess whether or not what you are doing is working or not, and to quantify by how much. Otherwise you might be guessing and make poor(er) training decisions.

Perhaps you should have given the presentation then. But improvement happens or doesn't whether it is measured or not.

There is another (smaller) factor, that being when you start to measure something involving human input and the human is aware of the new measurement, it does also tend to change behaviour.

But that change can be multi-direction and that viewing behaviour could work against you. Being a slave to the numbers could mean you miss technical aspects of your preparation (Cancellara) and if you do all your training by numbers for an IP and struggle without the power number in front of you.

I think there are far more compelling reasons for "selling power" that could have been highlighted on such a slide.

Agree.

 

[FrankDay]

… but I think the point is that an objective measure such as power output is a valuable means to assess whether or not what you are doing is working or not, and to quantify by how much. Otherwise you might be guessing and make poor(er) training decisions.

a power meter is a necessary implement if one wants to test power for whatever reason. What remains unproven is whether such testing is "valuable" in that it gives better feedback resulting in better improvement than alternative methods of assessment that were used before the ready availability of the device.

Others would claim that a gimmick meter is a more accurate (and, therefore, superior) method of dosing effort in training or racing than other methods. That assertion seems reasonable but is also unproven.

There are lots of reasons why a GM might be useful and valuable. But, the only evidence to support such a conclusion, just as it is with many other devices or techniques in sport, is theoretical and anecdotal. You and others can feel very strongly that GM device is useful, just as I feel about my product (the GC's to some), but, when push comes to shove, none of us can scientifically prove our contention, at least yet.

It must be particularly distressing for the GM advocates that the only study to look at the question found no benefit. Or, maybe, not since the study hasn't changed a single opinion as far as I can tell.

 

[CoachFergie]

a power meter is a necessary implement if one wants to test power for whatever reason. What remains unproven is whether such testing is "valuable" in that it gives better feedback resulting in better improvement than alternative methods of assessment that were used before the ready availability of the device.

The value is in a direct measure of performance. If a rider can produce more power than before they have improved. In a timed event on a given course on a given day if a rider produces more power to weight or power to frontal area. In a mass start event I look for riders who can produce the least amount of power till they see their point to attack whether it be 200km to go or 200m. In criterium I can compare two riders and show the one with the lower power has the better technique or skill.

Others would claim that a gimmick meter is a more accurate (and, therefore, superior) method of dosing effort in training or racing than other methods. That assertion seems reasonable but is also unproven.

Based on the assumption that how someone measures performance has an affect on performance.

There are lots of reasons why a GM might be useful and valuable. But, the only evidence to support such a conclusion, just as it is with many other devices or techniques in sport, is theoretical and anecdotal. You and others can feel very strongly that GM device is useful, just as I feel about my product (the GC's to some), but, when push comes to shove, none of us can scientifically prove our contention, at least yet.

Gardner etal 2004 showed that the power meter does in fact measure power.

Studies like Sperlich (2011) do in fact show that Gimmickcranks do not provide a training stimulus that improves power over a control group performing training on normal cranks.

Martin and McDaniel's studies both show no increase in power or metabolic efficiency from manipulating crank length.

It must be particularly distressing for the GM advocates that the only study to look at the question found no benefit. Or, maybe, not since the study hasn't changed a single opinion as far as I can tell.

That is because the JSCR is the dumping ground for studies that couldn't get published in MSSE or JSS.

 

[FrankDay]

The value is in a direct measure of performance.

sigh. A GM is a direct measure of power. Power is only one part of performance. A GM is not a direct measure of performance.

 

[CoachFergie]

sigh. A GM is a direct measure of power. Power is only one part of performance. A GM is not a direct measure of performance.

A power meter is a piece of equipment that measures power.

Power is a direct measure of performance.

 

[Boeing]

A power meter is a piece of equipment that measures power.

Power is a direct measure of performance.

and tires are the things on your bike that make contact with the road

 

[Oldman]

this thread has become tire-some.

 

[CoachFergie]

Yup 368 posts and no evidence about the "importance" of crank length has been forthcoming. This thread is the cyclingnews forum equivalent of "Seinfeld".

 

[Martin318is]

But it is fun to download
Yes, I am not sure which rider (Wiggins, Cancelara or Martin etc) had trouble to set PM at ITT start yesterday, he was all over that screen. If Wiggins can not pace himself without PM, well this is really interesting. Martin can.
All we can see riders stops PM at hills finish or ITT, those are only moments where they are really interesting in numbers IMHO.

interesting given he usually uses an SRM...

 

[oldborn]

interesting given he usually uses an SRM...

Yes we know that he uses SRM like everyone, but he did not had a chance to look at it while ITT. That was my point IMHO. Wiggins did, and what he did is just negative split, slower first lap, faster second. Martin (not you) did not bother with that.

 

[Martin318is]

The issue is not whether measuring power can be useful, it can be particularly useful in scientific studies of cyclists. The question becomes whether having that information can be useful to the athlete to improve outcome from what could be achieved before this information was widely available.

While it is generally assumed that because this measure of effort is more precise than say measuring HR or the subjective perceived effort that improved outcome would be the natural result. But, this has never been proven scientifically. In fact, the only study that I know of that has looked at this question found no improvement.

Therefore, from a scientific perspective, the use of a power meter (dare I say gimmick meter?) for training or racing is no better for improving outcome than using all sorts of stuff like nasal strips, Q-rings, power bracelets, PowerCranks, etc. All of these things may have some benefit but it has yet to be proven scientifically.

Take your car. It is possible to measure engine power output real time and show it to the driver. But, no car manufacturer makes that available to you. Why? Well, what would you do with it? Of more importance for everyday living is what your fuel economy is or how much fuel is in the tank and that is generally available. But power? Not even in the race cars.

The potential for something being useful is quite a bit different from it actually being useful and having been proven useful. Unfortunately, in sports, much of what we do has never been proven scientifically to be effective as there are simply too many variables or benefits come too slowly to be easily studied in a controlled setting.

Bugatti Veyron does. Lets keep it to less than 10 wild claims per thread, eh?

 

[Martin318is]

Yes we know that he uses SRM like everyone, but he did not had a chance to look at it while ITT. That was my point IMHO. Wiggins did, and what he did is just negative split, slower first lap, faster second. Martin (not you) did not bother with that.

that is a big assumption on your part though. the screen wasn't covered and whilst it was difficult to see it at any particular time, there is nothing stopping him from periodically checking the main figure by glancing between his arms. review the tape of the TT and you will see him doing this. you will also see him glancing down as he props up on the drops to enter corners. Riding with a PM isnt about obsessively monitoring your power ever 3 to 5 seconds. It is about making sure that you are holding the % of your maximum that is applicable for a set period. This can be done by setting the screen to show average power and checking periodically that it is not fluctuating greatly.

 

[oldborn]

that is a big assumption on your part though. the screen wasn't covered and whilst it was difficult to see it at any particular time, there is nothing stopping him from periodically checking the main figure by glancing between his arms. review the tape of the TT and you will see him doing this. you will also see him glancing down as he props up on the drops to enter corners. Riding with a PM isnt about obsessively monitoring your power ever 3 to 5 seconds. It is about making sure that you are holding the % of your maximum that is applicable for a set period. This can be done by setting the screen to show average power and checking periodically that it is not fluctuating greatly.

Yes it is big assumption, as that PM help us beeing faster (although beeing smarter or race prediction are wright words).
Even if he checking numbers periodically, what numbers he checked? Did he ride before that course? He did not.
Did he nows that he must hit 500 or so average watts? Maybe
Did he knows wind speed and then calculate his avg? I doubt
Too many corners, too many variables IMHO.

Did he maybe look at speed instead watts, we will never know I heard that dude who hit 50km/h avg or more would be medalist, not that one who hit 500 watts avg!!!
Do not get me wrong, PM are great tool, not like that SRM dude present us "How do I sell Power" slide. But What might happens if Wiggins did not look at damn thing at all, maybe he would be World Champion.

 

[CoachFergie]

Didn't LeMond say the same about Gimmickcranks? Perhaps he confused them with Power Measuring Cranks or did you get a signed World Champions Jersery as well Frank

 

[Tapeworm]

He may well have looked at both. Speed, in competition, can be a useful metric. Especially if you have time checks to compare with. That being said you don't want to blow up on the first hill (if there are any).