The Powermeter Thread

[CoachFergie]

I am looking for some evidence that using a PM offers a benefit to the cyclist.

Well be a good boy and let us know when you do. Because none of us have.

As a measurement tool however...

 

[CoachFergie]

For those who like to better their knowledge of something before they challenge it...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZC8wTYlhR6Q

 

[FrankDay]

For those who like to better their knowledge of something before they challenge it...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZC8wTYlhR6Q

From my wife: That was the most boring thing I have ever heard. Worse than any statistics course I ever took.

Anyhow, thanks for the link. I have a few comments.

My guess is that less than 2% of the people who heard that had a clue what the hell he was talking about. So much jargon. So little said in so many words. A typical lecture by an academic who doesn't understand his audience. He spent 30 minutes talking about what is a good model. All he had to say is a good model is predictive. The more it predicts (and the more closely it predicts) the better it is.

I would urge everyone to listen to part two next week when he is scheduled to talk about the limitations of current models. After all, that is what we are currently talking about.

And, remember, what he kept saying over and over, all models are wrong. The question is whether they are useful. As I have pointed out, there is little or no evidence the current model is useful if athletes are interested in improving their performance. I get the feeling they have figured that out so they are attempting to move on.

However, at the end in answering a question he stated the problem was in a limitation of the data not a limitation of the model. Wow!!! Such hubris. How does he know this? How is the user supposed to know that their data is not what the model needs?

Anyhow, I look forward to seeing future episodes and seeing how they address some of these issues.

 

[elapid]

As I have pointed out, there is little or no evidence the current model is useful if athletes are interested in improving their performance.

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.

Ah, no. It most obviously does not compute at all for you, Frank.

 

[CoachFergie]

So the main argument is your wife didn't like it and it went over your head so it must have gone over everyones head.

I expected more, even from you.

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Just glad I'm in the 2%

Although I suspect the subset is far bigger than that.

 

[42x16ss]

Ah, no. It most obviously does not compute at all for you, Frank.

It does, but if he admits it, several months and hundred of pages of high quality trolling goes straight down the drain

 

[CoachFergie]

It does, but if he admits it, several months and hundred of pages of high quality trolling goes straight down the drain

High quality? It's pretty obvious what he is trying to do. Several years of lame and predictable trolling.

 

[FrankDay]

Just glad I'm in the 2%

Although I suspect the subset is far bigger than that.

Really, To have a chance of understanding that webinar one would have had to taken at a minimum a college level statistics course, and some of that stuff was graduate level. While a lot of cyclists are geeks my guess is few of them have taken college level statistics, or if they have, most have forgotten a lot of what they were taught since they don't put this stuff to day to day use.

Further, UTube and a Webinar doesn't seem like the best place to "prove" how smart you are. Wouldn't that be better done in an academic paper? Probably not if you are doing something proprietary and trying to make a buck.

I guess I shouldn't complain because the series was presented as "Teaching the New Science of Power training" and the first episode was devoted to the "science" of modeling.

Another thing that seems a bit wierd to me is Dr. Coggan essentially admitted that the current model they use isn't very good. (more on that next time per the schedule.) Now, I don't care how accurate your power meter is, if you are putting that data into a model that isn't very good I am not sure what you expect to get out of it? But, there are 3 more episodes and they say they have come up with something better. Let's see what they got.

 

[CoachFergie]

Really, To have a chance of understanding that webinar one would have had to taken at a minimum a college level statistics course, and some of that stuff was graduate level. While a lot of cyclists are geeks my guess is few of them have taken college level statistics, or if they have, most have forgotten a lot of what they were taught since they don't put this stuff to day to day use.

And what does this have to do with anything. I guess Andy could have used a lot of weak anecdotes or faked data like some.

Further, UTube and a Webinar doesn't seem like the best place to "prove" how smart you are. Wouldn't that be better done in an academic paper? Probably not if you are doing something proprietary and trying to make a buck.

Same could be said of Gimmickcrank.com, the people there will say anything for a dollar it would appear. And four 90min webinars pitched at those with a good understanding of science and statistics for free! Obviously not that desperate to make a buck. Something you could learn from.

I guess I shouldn't complain because the series was presented as "Teaching the New Science of Power training" and the first episode was devoted to the "science" of modeling.

Yes, science, not power meter use for the masses. For that they can read RATWAPM.

Another thing that seems a bit wierd to me is Dr. Coggan essentially admitted that the current model they use isn't very good. (more on that next time per the schedule.)

Strawman. Not to say it isn't good, just that over time they have developed better models.

Now, I don't care how accurate your power meter is, if you are putting that data into a model that isn't very good I am not sure what you expect to get out of it? But, there are 3 more episodes and they say they have come up with something better. Let's see what they got.

Hey, even if at the end of the day you just use a PM to test several people in a experimental group and a control to be able to say a group that used a gimmickcrank in a training period performed no better than the control then that will save you wasting time training with a gimmickcrank. I mean you yourself said one client went worse going from them onto normal cranks so using a gimmickcrank harmed his performance!

As per usual we see the main motivation for your trolling is trying to discredit the tool that one can best use to show your product, that you try to make a buck from, is a waste of time.

 

[FrankDay]

Hey, even if at the end of the day you just use a PM to test several people in a experimental group and a control to be able to say a group that used a gimmickcrank in a training period performed no better than the control then that will save you wasting time training with a gimmickcrank. I mean you yourself said one client went worse going from them onto normal cranks so using a gimmickcrank harmed his performance!

LOL. What the customer was reporting was a decrease in speed when he went back to regular cranks in anticipation of racing. He was still faster and more powerful than before he started on the old GC's but he was in a conundrum regarding what he should do for his upcoming race. Without a PM he would have gone back without any knowledge of this small deterioration. I made a couple of suggestions to him from either racing on his PC's (he has plenty of base to be able to do so without much of an issue) or, perhaps, going to slightly shorter cranks (5mm - so from 145 to 140) when he goes back to regular cranks because he is probably losing some power because he is getting "lazy" coming over the top when he goes back to regular cranks, or so I hypothesized. He will make the decision he feels most comfortable with.

Anyhow, this is a power meter thread. You probably should stop bringing up (and misrepresenting) other products because you don't like the way the thread is going.

 

[CoachFergie]

LOL. What the customer was reporting was a decrease in speed when he went back to regular cranks in anticipation of racing.

So use of a gimmicrank harmed his performance.

Way this thread is headed? Did you not read Alex's post on power meter use at Kona. I LOVE the way this thread is headed!

Looks like your sad and tired efforts to discredit power meters and the measurement of cycling fitness with them is failing rather badly. And that is in the area of Ironman. In the cycling world it would appear that 98% of the peloton use a power meter and 100% of top track cycling nations use a power meter to measure cycling fitness. XC, BMX and DH are starting to come on board as the technology and robustness of the equipment improves.

So one lone voice with a bunch of weak anecdotes is stemming the tide sorry Frank. Better lift your game!

 

[FrankDay]

So use of a gimmicrank harmed his performance.

Sigh. No, he was inadequately adapted such that going back to regular cranks for the race was going to harm his performance from his full potential.

So much for your assertion that 5 weeks or so of training is enough to completely adapt.

 

[CoachFergie]

going back to regular cranks for the race was going to harm his performance from his full potential.

That is what I said, they harmed his performance.

So much for your assertion that 5 weeks or so of training is enough to completely adapt.

Where did I ever say completely adapt. It is the Bohm and Fernandez-Pena studies that show that riders do adapt quickly to the mechanical constraint imposed by gimmmickcranks. And Fernandez-Pena showed that with a removal of the stimulus one reverted back to a normal pedalling style.

So it is not me claiming something based of one case, who makes claims based on anecdotes, it is me pointing to the research that yet again shows your product is a waste of time. Something that people can measure with a power meter. It was you that said that he went worse going back to regular cranks after a gimmickcrank.

 

[FrankDay]

That is what I said, they harmed his performance.

Sigh, No. Overall he was faster than if he had never been on them. Even though he would be faster racing on regular cranks than if he had never trained on PC's his testing showed that regular cranks would slow him from his full potential compared to if he were to race on PowerCranks. Without such testing done with a power meter the athlete would never have been able to discern this difference. Such testing comparing different set ups is a valuable use of a power meter, as I have already stated. Whether he can psychologically bring himself to race 112 miles on the PowerCranks (when he has never done so) is a different story.

Your posts are off topic.

 

[CoachFergie]

Your posts are off topic.

You said an athlete went from using a gimmickcrank and went slower using normal cranks. Seeing the majority of cyclists can't race with gimmickcranks it would appear that training with a gimmickcrank harms performance.

This can be measured easily with a power meter.

Don't try and change the subject if you don't like where your own claim is leading us all!

 

[FrankDay]

You said an athlete went from using a gimmickcrank and went slower using normal cranks. Seeing the majority of cyclists can't race with gimmickcranks it would appear that training with a gimmickcrank harms performance.

This can be measured easily with a power meter.

Don't try and change the subject if you don't like where your own claim is leading us all!

Ugh, the only people who are prevented from racing on PowerCranks are track cyclists where the rules require them to be able to pedal backwards and brake the bicycle. And, the issue isn't whether going back slows them down a little but whether the training improved them overall.

Your posts remain off topic.

 

[CoachFergie]

Ugh, the only people who are prevented from racing on PowerCranks are track cyclists where the rules require them to be able to pedal backwards and brake the bicycle. And, the issue isn't whether going back slows them down a little but whether the training improved them overall.

Your posts remain off topic.

The BCF have banned them. Then why do Tayler, Cadel and Marco not race with their's, why does Sam Gyde not race with his.

Why does Sam Gyde race with a SRM when you yourself have said they don't improve performance and you yourself have said that training on gimmickcranks harms performance using normal cranks.

This is all very relevant as these questions are best answered by measuring with a power meter.

 

[acoggan]

Dr. Coggan essentially admitted that the current model they use isn't very good.

You seem to be confused: I don't use the critical power model.

 

[CoachFergie]

What do you expect when Franks biggest criticism of the "Science of the new WKO+" is it was too sciencey and bored his wife

 

[42x16ss]

High quality? It's pretty obvious what he is trying to do. Several years of lame and predictable trolling.

And he's getting the argument to circulate again and again, ad nauseum, for as long as I can remember. That's pretty successful trolling in my book. At least there's been quite a few good articles in this tread amongst the clutter.

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

And he's getting the argument to circulate again and again, ad nauseum, for as long as I can remember. That's pretty successful trolling in my book. At least there's been quite a few good articles in this tread amongst the clutter.

Signal to noise ratio is way too low.

can the cranks crap go elsewhere please.

 

[acoggan]

What do you expect when Franks biggest criticism of the "Science of the new WKO+" is it was too sciencey and bored his wife

Funny thing is that there wasn't a lot of actual science in that presentation.

 

[FrankDay]

You seem to be confused: I don't use the critical power model.

No, I don't think so. You wrote this:

Things have changed/will be changing so much that I suggested to Hunter that we just start from scratch and write an entirely new book.

and, as I remember, part II of your Webinar is about "problems with the current model" so, I can read between the lines and I think it says that you know there are some substantial deficiencies with the current model use by training peaks, not just with the critical power model. We will see how much better the new one is. Those, of course, who drank the kool-aid on the old model will, of course, believe the new one is so much better than the last one which they thought was perfect. I will wait until I see what you have.

One question I might ask is will the new model be able to know and predict the differences a rider might expect between riding in the "cycling" position and riding in their "aero" position?

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

No, I don't think so. You wrote this:
and, as I remember, part II of your Webinar is about "problems with the current model" so, I can read between the lines and I think it says that you know there are some substantial deficiencies with the current model use by training peaks, not just with the critical power model. We will see how much better the new one is. Those, of course, who drank the kool-aid on the old model will, of course, believe the new one is so much better than the last one which they thought was perfect. I will wait until I see what you have.

One question I might ask is will the new model be able to know and predict the differences a rider might expect between riding in the "cycling" position and riding in their "aero" position?

Frank, you're the sort of person who adds two and two and gets i


Simple example of what Andy was talking about (i.e. the principles of modelling):

Are the Newtonian laws of motion and gravity a really crappy model?

The answer of course is no, except when they are. Then Einstein came along and introduced the special and general theories of Relativity, which expanded the range of usefulness of the classical Newtonian models.

IOW just because one approach is not perfect (and was never touted as such), does not mean better and more refined approaches cannot be explored and tested to see if their domain is more broadly applicable.

Good coaches have been doing such intuitively for a long time but means to reliably quantify such things is most useful.

But in your world you instead present the false dichotomy, which is an intellectually lazy and disingenuous form of argument, and people see right through your fallacious logic.