• We're giving away a Cyclingnews water bottle! Find out more here!

The Powermeter Thread

Page 30 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Apr 21, 2009
2,686
0
0
FrankDay said:
Sure a measuring device can improve performance if it better motivates the athlete or provides a better measure of something important to concentrate on.
Name one.

The question here is not whether measuring effort can result in improvement but whether one measuring tool (pm) is better than another (PE, HRM, stopwatch).
Can the Borg scale be used to determine what RPE a rider must use to win an individual pursuit?

Can a HR monitor be used to tell a rider what HR they must sustain to win an individual pursuit?

Can a stopwatch measure the difference in performance between pursuits held on track in different weather conditions?

It may not give you that information but it certainly does me, especially when I am given a heads up by a new speed limit for a corner by a road sign.
But the speedometer doesn't select the gear or choose the pressure on the gas pedal. Nor does the road sign.

I would not be ignoring anything if anyone would simply show me where this decades of sports science research can be found.
Trolling.

Show me that using a PM in the process makes a difference to the athlete. That is all I ask for. I understand the arguments as to why it should. Just show me some evidence that it does.
Strawman.

You guys would rather come here and call me old and stupid rather than simply show everyone the evidence.
No we have said you are smart and educated which makes your actions in this forum all the more deplorable.
 
Mar 18, 2009
2,418
0
0
FrankDay said:
Or, in other words, does it make a difference compared to alternative methods of measuring effort/pacing? That is what the science should be looking at. It is somewhat akin to evaluating different treatments in medicine. Comparing two treatments, one a simple dietary manipulation and another using a pill that costs $1,000. Both work. Unless the pill has an improved outcome though do you think the average insurance company will pay for that treatment?
ALL of the studies that show HRM is as effective a tool as PM for training have used a PM to develop a baseline and serially measure improvements. Without the PM to measure baseline and serial improvements (and thus subsequent training protocols), the HRM would have been useless. If you want to go into a lab every time you want to measure your power data at baseline and serially thereafter to develop a training protocol with your HRM, then go for it. But I'm sure that would cost more than just buying a PM in the first place. I wonder why those researchers did not use a HRM to measure baseline data, develop training protocols, and measure improvements?
 
Sep 23, 2010
3,194
0
0
elapid said:
ALL of the studies that show HRM is as effective a tool as PM for training have used a PM to develop a baseline and serially measure improvements. Without the PM to measure baseline and serial improvements (and thus subsequent training protocols), the HRM would have been useless. If you want to go into a lab every time you want to measure your power data at baseline and serially thereafter to develop a training protocol with your HRM, then go for it. But I'm sure that would cost more than just buying a PM in the first place. I wonder why those researchers did not use a HRM to measure baseline data, develop training protocols, and measure improvements?
Then, come up with your own study and prove the worth of the tool. Or convince someone else to do so.

Of course, there is this problem that doesn't require a study. Years and years ago before the existence of HRM and PM's there were such things as records. Since the development of these tools it is not clear that the records have dramatically fallen due to the existence of these wonderful new tools. The decline of the World marathon record certainly has exceeded the fall of the cycling hour record yet marthoners don't use power meters. How can that be explained? Or, world cycling/triathlon champions continue to exist that do not use either device and train solely on perceived exertion. If using a PM offers an advantage it must certainly be small because records did not start falling off the trees as soon as it was widely used nor has it become impossible for someone to win a championship who doesn't use one. In fact, it continues to happen all the time.
 
Apr 21, 2009
2,686
0
0
FrankDay said:
Then, come up with your own study and prove the worth of the tool. Or convince someone else to do so.
That has been done as well.

Of course, there is this problem that doesn't require a study. Years and years ago before the existence of HRM and PM's there were such things as records. Since the development of these tools it is not clear that the records have dramatically fallen due to the existence of these wonderful new tools.
Perhaps you can explain how a measurement tool is meant to improve performance.

The decline of the World marathon record certainly has exceeded the fall of the cycling hour record
The UCI killed the Hour Record. All other records are very current.
 
Sep 23, 2010
3,194
0
0
CoachFergie said:
That has been done as well.
All I ask is you point me to it.
Perhaps you can explain how a measurement tool is meant to improve performance.
By motivating the subject to get out and train?
The UCI killed the Hour Record. All other records are very current.
You mean the UCI makes people compete for the hour record on a level playing field compared to the old codgers?
 
Apr 21, 2009
2,686
0
0
FrankDay said:
All I ask is you point me to it.By motivating the subject to get out and train?You mean the UCI makes people compete for the hour record on a level playing field compared to the old codgers?
It's at the start of this thread.

My riders, well the ones that win, are motivated by winning races, competing in the sport and riding their bikes fast.

Well the UCI did it one event and that killed it. They have restricted other records. Boardman set a 4000m record in the now banned Superman position and this was broken a few years back in a legal position.
 
Mar 18, 2009
2,418
0
0
FrankDay said:
Then, come up with your own study and prove the worth of the tool. Or convince someone else to do so.
Again, pot calling the kettle black. Very rich from the person who pushes a product but does not perform any research on that product (beyond providing meaningless anecdotes).

As far as performing a study on PMs, there is no need. Firstly, it has been said so many times now that a PM is a measuring tool and the tool does not make you better, but how you use the tool can make you better. This doesn't seem to compute for you, but that's just another example of your lack of understanding.

Secondly, PMs are used for baseline and followup measurements in HRM versus PM studies. Why would this be if HRMs are all you need?
 
FrankDay said:
Then, come up with your own study and prove the worth of the tool. Or convince someone else to do so.

Of course, there is this problem that doesn't require a study. Years and years ago before the existence of HRM and PM's there were such things as records. Since the development of these tools it is not clear that the records have dramatically fallen due to the existence of these wonderful new tools. The decline of the World marathon record certainly has exceeded the fall of the cycling hour record yet marthoners don't use power meters. How can that be explained? Or, world cycling/triathlon champions continue to exist that do not use either device and train solely on perceived exertion. If using a PM offers an advantage it must certainly be small because records did not start falling off the trees as soon as it was widely used nor has it become impossible for someone to win a championship who doesn't use one. In fact, it continues to happen all the time.
 
Sep 23, 2010
3,194
0
0
elapid said:
Again, pot calling the kettle black. Very rich from the person who pushes a product but does not perform any research on that product (beyond providing meaningless anecdotes).

As far as performing a study on PMs, there is no need. Firstly, it has been said so many times now that a PM is a measuring tool and the tool does not make you better, but how you use the tool can make you better. This doesn't seem to compute for you, but that's just another example of your lack of understanding.
Sure it computes. It is what I have been saying. The problem is there are several "measuring tools" available and the question is whether one is better than another and, if so, how much better? Since one of them is free and another costs $100 or so and another costs hundreds or thousands of dollars it is a reasonable question to ask.
Secondly, PMs are used for baseline and followup measurements in HRM versus PM studies. Why would this be if HRMs are all you need?
One needs an analytical and reproducible metric related to racing outcome if one is collecting data for a study or for another reason. One doesn't seem to need that tool if all one is interested in is collecting trophies.
 
Apr 21, 2009
2,686
0
0
FrankDay said:
Sure it computes. It is what I have been saying. The problem is there are several "measuring tools" available and the question is whether one is better than another and, if so, how much better?
One is qualitative and the other quantitative but impossible to compare individually or against others.

One can race better and see a lower or same HR (efficiency) or see a higher or similar HR (tolerance).

One can not say, I think rider A will sit on 158bpm on this climb so if you sit on 160bpm you will beat him.

One needs an analytical and reproducible metric related to racing outcome if one is collecting data for a study or for another reason. One doesn't seem to need that tool if all one is interested in is collecting trophies.
Power meter data doesn't relate to racing outcomes. I am learning that with my study. I assume you sat in on Andy's webinar ( :D ) and now have a better understanding of modelling power meter data. I mean you did say you wanted to learn more about this stuff, even if you haven't read RATWAPM!
 
May 13, 2011
440
0
0
sciguy said:
You come off as just plain ignorant when asking what a mean maximal power curve is. A right click, Google search gives the answer in a very few seconds. For a fellow who regularly emphasizes how curious you are you don't seem very curious. I even take notes when investigating things you bring up.

Hugh
FrankDay said:
??? Huh? When did I ask what a mean maximal power curve is? Are you posting again half asleep?
Nope I wasn't half asleep for this one;) You were replying to Alex when he wrote.

Alex Simmons/RST said:
As for IM specifically, well we also need to keep in mind that a rider isn't racing at their mean maximal power for the duration.
FrankDay said:
What does this mean?.
Now if you had the slightest clue what a mean maximal power curve was how is it that you wouldn't understand that a triathlete would never choose to ride at theirs for the duration of a triathlon? They wouldn't be able to walk the run let a lone run it. I would say that Stefanie is riding way too close to hers in order to have a good run and if she collected a bit of power data she would have a great tool to help evaluate that.

Let's hear your spin on this one spin doctor;)

Hugh
 
Sep 23, 2010
3,194
0
0
sciguy said:
Now if you had the slightest clue what a mean maximal power curve was how is it that you wouldn't understand that a triathlete would never choose to ride at theirs for the duration of a triathlon? They wouldn't be able to walk the run let a lone run it. I would say that Stefanie is riding way too close to hers in order to have a good run and if she collected a bit of power data she would have a great tool to help evaluate that.

Let's hear your spin on this one spin doctor;)

Hugh
Well, Asking what he meant by that could have just as well meant "what the hell does that have to do with this discussion?"

Anyhow, as regards Stefanie, she has managed to win her age group the last two years with those awesome rides and "slow" runs and all of those girls behind her who had power meters weren't able to best her. So does it really matter since it is the fastest from point a to point b that matters, not how fast one does one element or another? Perhaps she could go faster if she had a PM or perhaps she races to her strength without one. There simply isn't any evidence one way or another except she is pretty good without one and everyone she races against who has one is slower.

Wasn't there another pretty good triathlete (cyclist) who didn't use a power meter? I think the name was Chrissie Wellington.
 
Sep 23, 2010
3,194
0
0
CoachFergie said:
One is qualitative and the other quantitative but impossible to compare individually or against others.
I take it you have never done a Connconi ramp test where one collects power, HR, and perceived exertion. In any individual the three generally track quite well (they very quite a bit between individuals). The question comes down to how much accuracy is really necessary when assessing effort in doing training/racing? Is perceived exertion "close enough" or is it necessary to measure power to the nano watt to optimize potential.
Power meter data doesn't relate to racing outcomes. I am learning that with my study.
Wouldn't it be nice if the racer could find something that does relate to racing outcome? Until then, based upon this, one might think that the racer who focuses on power might be wasting his/her time. Unless, of course, there is some evidence to the contrary.
 
May 13, 2011
440
0
0
FrankDay said:
Well, Asking what he meant by that could have just as well meant "what the hell does that have to do with this discussion?"
huh, phooey, LOL


Oh please !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Can you just be honest for once?
 
Apr 21, 2009
2,686
0
0
FrankDay said:
I take it you have never done a Connconi ramp test where one collects power, HR, and perceived exertion. In any individual the three generally track quite well (they very quite a bit between individuals).
Or maybe not...

Jones, Andrew M.; Jonathan H. Doust (1995). "Lack of reliability in Conconi's heart rate deflection point". International Journal of Sports Medicine 16 (8): 541–544. doi:10.1055/s-2007-973051. PMID 8776209.

Jones, Andrew M.; Jonathan H. Doust (1997). "The Conconi test is not valid for estimation of the lactate turnpoint in runners". Journal of Sports Sciences 15 (4): 385–394. doi:10.1080/026404197367173. PMID 9293415.

The question comes down to how much accuracy is really necessary when assessing effort in doing training/racing? Is perceived exertion "close enough" or is it necessary to measure power to the nano watt to optimize potential.
That would depend how close the competition is. A the recent track cycling world cup in Manchester or BMX World Champs in Auckland differences between podium and nothing was a thousand of a second.

It has often been said that the women's fields in Kona never have the same depth as the men so a Chrissie Wellington has an genetic advantage. Perhaps if she had been pushed more by more people she would have had to test and measure more to chase those marginal gains. Same has been said about Marianne Vos.

Wouldn't it be nice if the racer could find something that does relate to racing outcome? Until then, based upon this, one might think that the racer who focuses on power might be wasting his/her time. Unless, of course, there is some evidence to the contrary.
Strawman. We don't use a power meter to improve performance. We train, eat, recover, set goals, work on position, choose technique, get aero, reduce friction etc to perform. We use a power meter to measure and test most of these things.
 
Sep 23, 2010
3,194
0
0
CoachFergie said:
Or maybe not...

Jones, Andrew M.; Jonathan H. Doust (1995). "Lack of reliability in Conconi's heart rate deflection point". International Journal of Sports Medicine 16 (8): 541–544. doi:10.1055/s-2007-973051. PMID 8776209.

Jones, Andrew M.; Jonathan H. Doust (1997). "The Conconi test is not valid for estimation of the lactate turnpoint in runners". Journal of Sports Sciences 15 (4): 385–394. doi:10.1080/026404197367173. PMID 9293415.
The only way to accurately assess LT reliably is to measure it. LT meters are now available that are affordable for the athlete. If one really wanted to know wouldn't a lactate meter be a better purchase than trying to measure it indirectly using a power meter?

Anyhow, here is a link to a paper from Peaks Coaching Group (heard of them) in which a method is given for determining LT HR or Power and one is not claimed to be better than the other. Wonder why? I might add that this method is quite close to the method determined to be most accurate for determining LT HR in runners in this paper.
That would depend how close the competition is. A the recent track cycling world cup in Manchester or BMX World Champs in Auckland differences between podium and nothing was a thousand of a second.

It has often been said that the women's fields in Kona never have the same depth as the men so a Chrissie Wellington has an genetic advantage. Perhaps if she had been pushed more by more people she would have had to test and measure more to chase those marginal gains. Same has said about Marianne Vos.



Strawman. We don't use a power meter to improve performance. …
Wow, perhaps you don't but I would be surprised if the average person buying a PM feels the same way. Why would someone want to spend $1,000 or so on a device that isn't going to help them improve performance? And, since, as you assert, having a PM doesn't help one to improve performance how would having one make a difference in the race you reference above where there was a 0.001 second difference between 1st and 2nd?
 
Sep 23, 2010
3,194
0
0
Sep 23, 2010
3,194
0
0
sciguy said:
huh, phooey, LOL


Oh please !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Can you just be honest for once?
What does it have to do with this discussion? I am looking for some evidence that using a PM offers a benefit to the cyclist. Throwing out another PM term without some evidence that it is useful and benefits the cyclist beyond what can be done without one is not adding to the discussion IMHO.
 
Apr 21, 2009
2,686
0
0
FrankDay said:
The only way to accurately assess LT reliably is to measure it.
Measure it you say?

LT meters are now available that are affordable for the athlete.
Lactate threshold meters?

If one really wanted to know wouldn't a lactate meter be a better purchase than trying to measure it indirectly using a power meter?
Ha ha. The lactate threshold is an indirect measure of ~30min power. Would it not be better to make a direct measure of 30min power if you really needed to know that number.

If you really cared about learning this stuff you would have tuned in yesterday to see that in 2003 we looked max mean powers over 5sec, 60sec, 5min and Functional Threshold. In 2010 this changed to max mean powers in the over 12 durations as part of the fatigue profile. Now we can look forward to analyse of MMP's over all durations.

Would also add to that one needs to look at the specificity of measurement. Does 30min power in the lab = 30min power on the flat, off-road or uphill. Does 3min power in the lab = 3min power in the individual pursuit.

But this only applies to individual events. What about mass start events or time trials on undulating courses? This is where any coach should really be paying attention to the new metrics being developed in cycling. Expect to be hearing the term Functional Reserve Capacity quite a bit from now on.

Anyhow, here is a link to a paper from Peaks Coaching Group (heard of them) in which a method is given for determining LT HR or Power and one is not claimed to be better than the other.
Anyone can post a paper on their website. Get it published in a peer review journal and we will talk.

I might add that this method is quite close to the method determined to be most accurate for determining LT HR in runners in this paper.
A study on runners. Bit like a TT. Cycling has a lot more variability and we need better measures than just threshold alone.

Wow, perhaps you don't but I would be surprised if the average person buying a PM feels the same way. Why would someone want to spend $1,000 or so on a device that isn't going to help them improve performance?
I would ask anyone who brought a Gimmickcrank the same:cool:

And, since, as you assert, having a PM doesn't help one to improve performance how would having one make a difference in the race you reference above where there was a 0.001 second difference between 1st and 2nd?
It wouldn't, I think I been quite clear and consistent on that point.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS