The Powermeter Thread

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Yes, relativity is coming into play in some human endeavors. However, up until about 50 years ago relativity was an intellectual curiosity and Newton's laws ran the world. Soon we will see quantum theory involved in some activities. But, for the purposes of describing what is necessary to making a bike go any particular speed, newton's laws are all that are necessary. F=ma. No modeling required.

these laws didn't "run the world", they are just the models used to help predict behaviour (exceptionally well) for the domain we are familar with in everyday life.

Quantum mechanics and relativity have always been there (even though we may not have known about them), it's just the domain over which which these newer models predict physical behaviour is greater and/or different than with newtonian mechanics.

and that's the point.

Quantum physics is already in play in many modern electronic devices, smartphones, blu-ray players, atomic clocks etc. which would not exist without our understanding of such things having evolved.

 

[sciguy]

Just because power is used to gauge the effectiveness of a training program is not a particularly good reason that power need be used as an integral part of the training program, unless there is some evidence that doing so is superior.

So gauging the effectiveness of the training program isn't important to you?

In the past you've mentioned that the race should be the best place to gauge the effectiveness of one's training but for those doing a single IronMan distance race per year that really doesn't give them an appropriate amount of feedback as to how training is progressing.

Hugh

 

[veganrob]

Hmmm. It was my understanding the reason to develop a good model for the power duration relationship was so the athlete might be able to optimize power for a distance that they have no experience with directly. How can the Ironman athlete know what power to sustain for a 5-6 hour bike when their longest training ride is 2-3 hours? How can a rider know what power they should ride for a 24 hour race or the Race Across America? That seems like the model would be useful, if it were a reliable and accurate model, to help riders optimize performance.

Yet, you say you aren't going to be talking about relating training to performance. I guess the question then is how do you expect the average user of your model to use it? What do you expect them to get from it?

I know a lot of athletes doing IMs and their longest training rides are definitely longer than 2-3 hours.

 

[FrankDay]

I know a lot of athletes doing IMs and their longest training rides are definitely longer than 2-3 hours.

Cool. However, there are lots doing them whose longest training ride is not longer than 2-3 hours.

When I was learning how to run my first marathon I was told it was not necessary to run any longer than 12-15 miles at any one time in training. There were excellent rules of thumb to help the new athlete do the distance, at a good time, based upon their training pace and weekly mileage. Isn't that the purpose of a power-duration curve, to give the same insight to the cyclist?

 

[veganrob]

Cool. However, there are lots doing them whose longest training ride is not longer than 2-3 hours.

When I was learning how to run my first marathon I was told it was not necessary to run any longer than 12-15 miles at any one time in training. There were excellent rules of thumb to help the new athlete do the distance, at a good time, based upon their training pace and weekly mileage. Isn't that the purpose of a power-duration curve, to give the same insight to the cyclist?

I will give you partial credit, and I am not being demeaning here at all. Some of the training programs that people are on are totally ridiculous in how much work they are required to do in leading up to their IM. Some of them are so exhausted by the load that I believe they are going into event in a very diminshed state.
But, 2-3 hours to a not so accomplished athlete may only be 35-50 miles and IMO is not nearly enough training to ride 112. Not only that, they will not be mentally ready to perform up to par because of the uncertainty that they can accomplish the task. So there is a line but I think it is a bit further out than you think.
But sorry I am off topic now.

 

[acoggan]

There is no doubt that a power meter can be used to effectively utilize all kinds of training protocols, including the impulse-response protocol you prefer. However, runners have been using this type of training effectively for years without the aid of a power meter as have many cyclists. Therefore, what I am asking for here is this: is there any evidence that using a power meter to facilitate this kind of training is more effective than using the other kinds of feedback useful in this kind of training used by runners or cyclists using other techniques? It isn't a question of whether it works but whether one method is superior to another.

Just because power is used to gauge the effectiveness of a training program is not a particularly good reason that power need be used as an integral part of the training program, unless there is some evidence that doing so is superior.

Non-sequitur.

 

[acoggan]

Hmmm. It was my understanding the reason to develop a good model for the power duration relationship was so the athlete might be able to optimize power for a distance that they have no experience with directly. How can the Ironman athlete know what power to sustain for a 5-6 hour bike when their longest training ride is 2-3 hours? How can a rider know what power they should ride for a 24 hour race or the Race Across America? That seems like the model would be useful, if it were a reliable and accurate model, to help riders optimize performance.

Yet, you say you aren't going to be talking about relating training to performance. I guess the question then is how do you expect the average user of your model to use it? What do you expect them to get from it?

Apparently you weren't paying very close attention: while modeling the power-duration relationship is helpful when attempting to develop optimal pacing strategies, that is but a minor benefit. The primary benefits were depicted in the 'Parthenon' slide.

 

[acoggan]

When I was learning how to run my first marathon I was told it was not necessary to run any longer than 12-15 miles at any one time in training. There were excellent rules of thumb to help the new athlete do the distance, at a good time, based upon their training pace and weekly mileage. Isn't that the purpose of a power-duration curve, to give the same insight to the cyclist?

Nope.

(ten characters)

 

[sittingbison]

You're feeding the trolls

 

[CoachFergie]

Hey SB, we are trying. Kinda hard when you get told measurement is wrong, modelling is wrong, subjective measures are as good as objective, anecdotes are evidence and science published in blogs or abstracts is just as good as peer review by one troll in particular it wears thin.

I am pretty excited to learn about the functional reserve capacity. Andy has used some of my data from well performed track cyclists to test his model. In the interim I have downloaded a trial of RaceDay software and looked at various rides using the W' (AWC) model and think if FRC can improve on that it is going to help us understand the cycling performance process even more.

Illustrates me going up a 4.5km climb and riding above my critical power and slowly chipping away at my W'. Probably would have come back to bite if I did a second run.

This is short interval session I do, I finish with a 30sec maximal effort. Look at how W' drops and doesn't recover before I start my first effort. If this was a points race or an elimination race on the track I could possibly benefit from allowing a bigger gap between my warm up effort and the start. Also reminds me to put put everything into each sprint and measure my efforts over the whole race (5 training efforts in this case).

Of course this is intuitive to those who ride lots of points races or coach the event but it is cool to be able to show people some hard numbers and illustrate what is happening. If FRC can model this better then this will take modelling performance in cycling to a higher level. I can see this spurring us to develop more specific tests of fitness for various events to compare against a riders current performance and push us to develop more specific methods of preparing riders for their goal events.

Exciting times!

 

[FrankDay]

So gauging the effectiveness of the training program isn't important to you?

In the past you've mentioned that the race should be the best place to gauge the effectiveness of one's training but for those doing a single IronMan distance race per year that really doesn't give them an appropriate amount of feedback as to how training is progressing.

Hugh

Sure it is. But you seem to think that measuring power is the only method available to assess the effectiveness of what one is doing/has done. It is not. You might even think it is the best way to assess that effectiveness. It might well be except there is no evidence to support that view.

Anyhow, you guys seem to think this Ironman thing is a lot harder than it has to be if one is smart enough. If you will remember, i did the very first Ironman back in 1978 before the advent of power meters, HRM's, or anything else.

When I did that race I was one of the few who had actually ridden a bike with any regularity before the event (several participants either borrowed or purchased a bike the week before the race) and I had never ridden a bike more than 10 miles at any one time (the distance from my home to my work). Further, I hadn't done any swimming for years. But, I had enough running experience to know that pacing was going to be key to the race.

Despite this lack of experience I was able to get off the bike and start running at my normal training pace feeling good. What got me (and where my "experience" failed me) was nutrition. I simply ran out of energy and couldn't run any more. Yet, I was still able to do this race in under the current 17 hour cut-off.

What is more important than gauging the effectiveness of the training program is being able to gauge your ability and then pace yourself in the race to your ability. It isn't clear to me that having a power meter improves that need. Yet, that is the standard view, that it does. Where is the support for that view?

 

[FrankDay]

I will give you partial credit, and I am not being demeaning here at all. Some of the training programs that people are on are totally ridiculous in how much work they are required to do in leading up to their IM. Some of them are so exhausted by the load that I believe they are going into event in a very diminshed state.
But, 2-3 hours to a not so accomplished athlete may only be 35-50 miles and IMO is not nearly enough training to ride 112. Not only that, they will not be mentally ready to perform up to par because of the uncertainty that they can accomplish the task. So there is a line but I think it is a bit further out than you think.
But sorry I am off topic now.

While 2-3 hours to a "not so accomplished athlete" may not be "nearly enough" to ride 112 to you, as I posted on on an earlier post, I did the first Ironman having never ridden a bike more than 10 miles and some did that race having never ridden a bike since childhood and either borrowing or buying a bike just before the race. I passed one fellow at about the 20 mile mark who asked me "how do you shift this thing?". What he was asking was he didn't understand what made it "easier". But, he was a little engine that could and actually finished ahead of me, passing me on the run when I ran out of energy.

Many people doing Ironman really aren't concerned with how fast they do it (as long as they are under 17 hours) as long as they do it. Many are classically "undertrained" yet they do it. Their friends who don't know 8 hours from 16 hours are completely impressed even though you aren't. The key to doing an Ironman in under 17 hours is simply being "fit enough" and proper pacing (slowing down) to your fitness.

 

[elapid]

What is more important than gauging the effectiveness of the training program is being able to gauge your ability and then pace yourself in the race to your ability. It isn't clear to me that having a power meter improves that need. Yet, that is the standard view, that it does. Where is the support for that view?

Again, I'll use Floyd Landis as the perfect example of the use of power to gauge effort. I know how much you love anecdotes, Frank. Floyd had traditionally relied on perceived effort and shunned HRMs and PMs. However, on his infamous stage 17 of the 2006 TdF, he and his coaches gauged his effort based on his power output and knew that he would be able to sustain his effort to the end. He knew what power output he could sustain during this race based on the results of using his PM during training.

 

[FrankDay]

these laws didn't "run the world", they are just the models used to help predict behaviour (exceptionally well) for the domain we are familar with in everyday life.

Apparently you missed the memo. A model is usually needed when trying to simplify, for the purposes of understanding and predicting, very complex systems. What Newton proposed was not (and is not) a model because it wasn't a simplification of anything, but was a theory regarding math that explained how the world works. Those laws have stood the test of time and require zero modification, even now, except when at the very extremes of size or speed when relativity or quantum effects start to have a role. These extremes were inconceivable at the time of Newton.

Quantum mechanics and relativity have always been there (even though we may not have known about them), it's just the domain over which which these newer models predict physical behaviour is greater and/or different than with newtonian mechanics.

Newtonian physics still do not constitute a model as they still aren't a simplification of anything since there is not an accepted unified theory yet. (edit: physicists still refer to them as Newton's Laws, not the Newton model) Quantum mechanics predominate under certain conditons. Relativity predominates under other conditions. Newtonian physics predominate under other conditions. No one has figured out how to tie them all together yet. Newtonian physics are applied without fear of needing any "tweaking" to be accurate for the vast majority of applications in the world. No need to consider them a simplification so they do not constitute a model.

and that's the point.

Quantum physics is already in play in many modern electronic devices, smartphones, blu-ray players, atomic clocks etc. which would not exist without our understanding of such things having evolved.

Yes. Your point as regards athletic performance in biological systems modeling?

Modeling is used by a wide variety of disciplines. The Navy uses modeling in the design of ships and airplanes

In medicine, drug distribution is "modeled" by using compartment models, to aid in predicting drug distribution and effects.

Dr. Coggan is trying to model human performance.

There are really only two keys two understanding the importance of a model. 1. How good is it in describing reality? 2. What beneficial use (and at what cost) can come from using the model beyond what was available before?

Dr. Coggan seems to think he has come up with some improvements to his model. Good. Now, if only he could tell us what benefits come to those who use it compared to what was available before.

 

[FrankDay]

Again, I'll use Floyd Landis as the perfect example of the use of power to gauge effort. I know how much you love anecdotes, Frank. Floyd had traditionally relied on perceived effort and shunned HRMs and PMs. However, on his infamous stage 17 of the 2006 TdF, he and his coaches gauged his effort based on his power output and knew that he would be able to sustain his effort to the end.

And, Stefanie Adam, an amateur, rode 5 minutes faster than the fastest pro at the IM World Championships and she doesn't use a PM in training or racing. And, Sam Gyde, ignored the power recommendation of his coach and rode at a substantially higher power because he felt so good. Choose your anecdotes ladies and gentlemen then go to your corners. The point is there is no science that says which way is superior if one actually is.

 

[CoachFergie]

And, Stefanie Adam, an amateur, rode 5 minutes faster than the fastest pro at the IM World Championships and she doesn't use a PM in training or racing. And, Sam Gyde, ignored the power recommendation of his coach and rode at a substantially higher power because he felt so good. Choose your anecdotes ladies and gentlemen then go to your corners. The point is there is no science that says which way is superior if one actually is.

Just shows anecdotes are very limited for trying to prove anything.

 

[FrankDay]

Just shows anecdotes are very limited for trying to prove anything.

Anecdotes are beyond "limited" for proving anything. They cannot prove anything at least from a scientific perspective. All anecdotes can do is suggest that there might be something to what you are seeing.

 

[acoggan]

This is short interval session I do

Are my eyes deceiving me, or did your W' end up way into negative territory??

 

[acoggan]

Dr. Coggan is trying to model human performance.

There are really only two keys two understanding the importance of a model. 1. How good is it in describing reality? 2. What beneficial use (and at what cost) can come from using the model beyond what was available before?

Dr. Coggan seems to think he has come up with some improvements to his model.

No, I've come up with an improvement on the models of others (as I'll demonstrate over the next couple of weeks.

Good. Now, if only he could tell us what benefits come to those who use it compared to what was available before.

??

I listed 10 on that one slide.

 

[CoachFergie]

Are my eyes deceiving me, or did your W' end up way into negative territory??

Possibly to do with using my current CP affected by a bad cold. Before then I would have had a higher CP and W' as I was testing a lot of different interval protocols. I will see if I can put some more accurate numbers for the time.

And RaceDay is only a band-aid till Dec 10th

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

similar but different (said with a western suburbs inflection)

http://alex-cycle.blogspot.com.au/2011/03/anaerobic-stuff-mr-peabodys-wabac.html

 

[acoggan]

similar but different (said with a western suburbs inflection)

http://alex-cycle.blogspot.com.au/2011/03/anaerobic-stuff-mr-peabodys-wabac.html

Thanks for posting that, Alex.

 

[Polyarmour]

I end up with negative watts while regeneration braking into my bionic leg implants. The 1973 originals cost $6m but they've now worn out, looks like I'm going to have to fork out $600m to replace them. Unbelievable! Anyway I have a new bike made from unobtanium and it goes fast enough to blow the curls right out of Farrah's hair... just wondering if anyone makes a powermeter that can measure power at my titanium ankles? That way no matter which bike I've got, no matter what shoes I'm wearing, whether running, walking, swimming or kicking someone in the head, left foot, right foot, power output or input, I'm getting a continuous reading to my bionic eye headsup display. Regards Steve Austin.

 

[CoachFergie]

Possibly to do with using my current CP affected by a bad cold. Before then I would have had a higher CP and W' as I was testing a lot of different interval protocols. I will see if I can put some more accurate numbers for the time.

And RaceDay is only a band-aid till Dec 10th

Yup, can't go back and change CP or W' to reflect better form I had back then. Hope this is an option in WKO+ 4.0.

Frank is now in my banned list. I wish him luck saving the world from power meters

 

[CoachFergie]

Can change the overall CP, not sure in the same way that one can do in WKO+ 3.0. To reflect June when the form was good before getting sick for two months.