• The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to @SHaines here on the forum, or use the Contact Us form to message the Community Team.

    In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.

    Thanks!

The Powermeter Thread

Page 4 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
The Record Power Profile to Assess Performance in
Elite Cyclists

J. Pinot , F. Grappe

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to assess the
Record Power Profile (RPP) of cyclists, i. e., the
relationship between different record Power
Output (PO) and the corresponding durations
through a whole race season. We hypothesized
that PO of different effort durations could differ
according to the cyclist’s category and race
performance profile. 17 cyclists (9 professionals
and 8 elites) performed all trainings and competitions
during 10 months with a mobile power
meter device (SRM) mounted on their bike. The
results show that the cyclists ’ RPP is a hyperbolic
relationship between the diff erent record PO and
time durations. It significantly reflects the characteristics
of different skills: 1) sprinters have
the highest record PO within zone 5, 2) climbers
present the highest record PO within zones 2 – 3
and, 3) climbers and flat specialists have higher
zone 1 record PO than sprinters. These results
suggest that the RPP represents “ a signature ” of
the cyclists ’ physical capacity and that it allows
the determination of different training intensities.
The RPP appears as a new concept that is
interesting for coaches and scientists in order to
evaluate performance in cycling.
 
The Peronnet–Thibault mathematical model applied to the record power profile in cycling

J. Pinot* and F. Grappe

In cycling, the new concept of record power profile (RPP)
allows the expression and the monitoring of the physical
potential of the cyclist through the relationship between
the different record power output (PO) and the time (Pinot
and Grappe 2010, 2011). PO developed by a cyclist is
becoming a biomechanical variable of performance, which
is measured today in routine directly on the bicycle during
training and competition. The RPP appears to be an
innovative method for the cycling training process and the
evaluation of the different physical capacities of the cyclist
(Pinot and Grappe 2010).
 
The ‘Power Profile’ for determining the physical
capacities of a cyclist

J. Pinot & F. Grappe

Monod and Scherrer have determined the concept of
critical power (CP) by establishing a linear relation
between the time to exhaustion (Tex) and (1) the total work
performed (Monod and Scherrer 1965) and (2) the distance
covered (Scherrer 1958). To improve this concept,
Peronnet and Thibault (1987) have suggested a more
elaborate model that describes the relationship between
the percentage of maximal aerobic velocity and the time of
exercise from 7 min to 2 h. This model allows the
evaluation of three physical capacities of an athlete: Tex,
CP and endurance. It is possible to ameliorate this model
by determining the ‘Power Profile’ (PP) of a cyclist. The
PP can assess more physical capacities (Figure 1) from the
relationship between the maximum power output (POmax)
sustained (during trainings and competitions) and the time
between 1 s and 4 h (Larrazabal et al. 2006; Villerius et al.
2007). PO developed by a cyclist becomes a biomechanical
variable of performance which is currently measured
in routine directly on the bicycle during training and
competition. For that, it is necessary to fix a powermeter
on the bike (SRM training system or Powertap). The
simplicity of use of these systems pushes the coaches and
the cyclists to use PO for the training follow-up. As the
level of PO is dependent on the exercise intensity, the
analysis of PO during all the trainings and competitions
permits the determination of the PP of the cyclist. From
there, it is possible to make PP comparisons between (1)
different cyclists according to the age and race category
and (2) during a season for a cyclist.
 
Mar 18, 2009
2,553
0
0
Visit site
CoachFergie said:
The Record Power Profile to Assess Performance in
Elite Cyclists

J. Pinot , F. Grappe

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to assess the
Record Power Profile (RPP) of cyclists, i. e., the
relationship between different record Power
Output (PO) and the corresponding durations
through a whole race season. We hypothesized
that PO of different effort durations could differ
according to the cyclist’s category and race
performance profile. 17 cyclists (9 professionals
and 8 elites) performed all trainings and competitions
during 10 months with a mobile power
meter device (SRM) mounted on their bike. The
results show that the cyclists ’ RPP is a hyperbolic
relationship between the diff erent record PO and
time durations. It significantly reflects the characteristics
of different skills: 1) sprinters have
the highest record PO within zone 5, 2) climbers
present the highest record PO within zones 2 – 3
and, 3) climbers and flat specialists have higher
zone 1 record PO than sprinters. These results
suggest that the RPP represents “ a signature ” of
the cyclists ’ physical capacity and that it allows
the determination of different training intensities.
The RPP appears as a new concept that is
interesting for coaches and scientists in order to
evaluate performance in cycling.

Gee, now THERE'S a novel idea. :rolleyes::mad:
 
Mar 18, 2009
2,553
0
0
Visit site
FrankDay said:
Well, that is nothing more than saying "trust me, I know what I am talking about".

Not me: I'm not a coach, nor have I ever pretended to be one.

FrankDay said:
In fact, I would submit that science should be able to answer the question as to the best way for an individual to train. It just isn't capable of doing that now.

Nor is it likely to ever be able to do so (due to 3A that I previously listed).
 
Sep 23, 2010
3,596
1
0
Visit site
CoachFergie said:
There is considerable evidence. When I did my first anaerobic threshold test in 1989 watts were only used to quantify the stages or ramps in the test and heart rate and lactate were the main things monitored. Now in most performance tests reported in the literature or as used by most National or Professional Squads power is the key metric they track.
Fergie, your "considerable evidence is all anecdotal. Either way, don't you think this change is because it is so easy to track and, of course, "everyone knows" how important it is now. But, for the purpose of discussion, let's take the hour record, last set over 15 years ago in 1996. If the power meter is such a powerful tool for monitoring training or racing doesn't it seem strange that this record hasn't been broken since the power meter came into common use.
More trolling. It would be beyond belief that a former engineer would not know the difference between a method of improving outcomes and the equipment used to measure those outcomes.
I don't find that strange at all. Since there is no scientific evidence to indicate that one method of improving outcome is superior to another I, like everyone else, am left to my best guess based upon what I think is most important. And, since races are not decided by those who have the most power it seems like power would not necessarily be the most important metric to follow. If one wants to talk about equipment important to measuring cycling outcome I would submit that the stop watch and the photo finish camera are most important to cycling.
 
Sep 23, 2010
3,596
1
0
Visit site
CoachFergie said:
Which is ignoring 100 years of sport science. The last 20 years in particular when power is the key metric when measuring for a change in cycling specific fitness.
Fergie, the power is there whether it is measured or not. The scientific evidence suggests measuring power daily it is simply a way of making everyone feel better about their training.
I have listed several papers in this thread alone that shows that a power meter does what it claims, how to calibrate a power meter and have started to list some papers showing how power is the most useful measure for determining event demands.
Knowing all of that is, perhaps, useful to the investigator but, again, there is no evidence that knowing that improves racing outcome. Isn't that what most people are interested in?

We all know that training improves outcome and we all know that better pacing usually improves outcome. There is no scientific evidence to support what is the best way to train or the best way to pace.
 
FrankDay said:
Fergie, your "considerable evidence is all anecdotal. Either way, don't you think this change is because it is so easy to track and, of course, "everyone knows" how important it is now. But, for the purpose of discussion, let's take the hour record, last set over 15 years ago in 1996. If the power meter is such a powerful tool for monitoring training or racing doesn't it seem strange that this record hasn't been broken since the power meter came into common use.

Your ignorance is astounding. Chris Boardman and his coach Peter Keen were one of the pioneers of racing and training with a power culminating in three stages; 1992 Olympic Pursuit Champion, 1996 setting the Hour and 4000m record and 1999 when they banned the Obree position setting the "Merckx" Hour Record which has been subsequently broken.

No one has bothered to break the ultimate hour record since then because the UCI don't recognise it.

Since there is no scientific evidence to indicate that one method of improving outcome is superior to another I, like everyone else, am left to my best guess based upon what I think is most important.

Again considerable ignorance of research into high carbohydrate diets, training specificity among other things.

And, since races are not decided by those who have the most power it seems like power would not necessarily be the most important metric to follow. If one wants to talk about equipment important to measuring cycling outcome I would submit that the stop watch and the photo finish camera are most important to cycling.

Very astute Frank, yes I have never been to an event where one simply submits their power data and is awarded a placing:rolleyes:
 
FrankDay said:
Fergie, the power is there whether it is measured or not. The scientific evidence suggests measuring power daily it is simply a way of making everyone feel better about their training.

Trolling.

Knowing all of that is, perhaps, useful to the investigator but, again, there is no evidence that knowing that improves racing outcome. Isn't that what most people are interested in?

Trolling.

We all know that training improves outcome and we all know that better pacing usually improves outcome. There is no scientific evidence to support what is the best way to train or the best way to pace.

Well considering that some people overtrain, train in a non specific fashion or pace themselves poorly it shows that we need to find better ways to measure cycling performance and how we apply power during an event. More reasons to race and train with a power meter to ensure we are delivering power appropriately in an event, training specifically towards the event and getting the balance of training right.
 
FrankDay said:
not necessarily be the most important metric to follow. If one wants to talk about equipment important to measuring cycling outcome I would submit that the stop watch and the photo finish camera are most important to cycling.

We are not talking about measuring the outcome of cycling, we are talking about training.
 
Sep 23, 2010
3,596
1
0
Visit site
Fergie, you were the one who started this thread to discuss the science of power meters.
I would start a power meter thread to discuss the science behind this measurement tool.
Other than some science to show that power meters actually do measure power and (we can assume) that speed does relate to power output there is zero scientific evidence that owning a power meter or measuring power in any way during racing or training makes any difference to the athlete. It is "common knowledge" that it should but there is zero evidence it does. I think the same can be said for the HRM also but the difference is a HRM doesn't cost $1,000-$5,000.
 
Sep 23, 2010
3,596
1
0
Visit site
CoachFergie said:
Well considering that some people overtrain, train in a non specific fashion or pace themselves poorly it shows that we need to find better ways to measure cycling performance and how we apply power during an event. More reasons to race and train with a power meter to ensure we are delivering power appropriately in an event, training specifically towards the event and getting the balance of training right.
Of course it would be a goal to find better ways to train and pace. And, one can certainly argue that the power meter SHOULD provide that benefit. It is simply that such a benefit has never been shown even by those who have looked like Robinson
Furthermore, our findings indicate that there is no empirical evidence for the superiority of any single type of device in the implementation of interval training. This study indicates that there are no noticeable advantages to using PM to increase performance in the average recreational cyclist, suggesting that low cost HR monitor are equally capable as training devices.
or as Swart found that the HRM may actually be superior to the power meter
The current general perception that prescribing training based only on power is more effective than prescribing training based on heart rate was not supported by the data from this study. Coaches who are unable to monitor progress frequently should prescribe training based on heart rate, when intervals are performed under stable conditions, because this may provide an additional advantage over prescribing training using power.
That is what the science says, at least so far.
 
veganrob said:
We are not talking about measuring the outcome of cycling, we are talking about training.

Yup, one of my riders finished second in a bunch sprint and was rather happy he had put out 1600 watts max power till I found out the winner had only put out a max of 1200 watts but was in a far better position and didn't need to hit a peak to get in position and then try and sprint again to win.

I had several riders using SRM at NZ Track Nationals and could see from the power where they were making errors in pacing. When the power was high but outcome poor I could go back to pacing, the line they choose, positioning in the race, aerodynamics etc to see where we needed to focus.

But the real advantage was having race winning data from previous years to ensure that during the lead in to Nationals we were training at the appropriate level, appropriate volume and in a manner specific to the demands of the event.

Andy is correct that performing a study on this would be problematic because you would have low sample numbers (ie only 3 riders from one country can ride the Sprints at a World Champs) and also if the data is being collected (as it is by most countries in Track cycling it is rarely published because no one wants to give away a potential competitive advantage. Brad Wiggins was keen to publish his power data to dispel drug rumours but Sky said no.
 
FrankDay said:
Fergie, you were the one who started this thread to discuss the science of power meters.

Be a good chap and let me know if I have broken any forum rules by broadening the scope of the thread.

Other than some science to show that power meters actually do measure power and (we can assume) that speed does relate to power output there is zero scientific evidence that owning a power meter or measuring power in any way during racing or training makes any difference to the athlete.

I totally agree. Putting an SRM on my bike on Monday made absolutely no difference to me whatsoever.
 
Sep 23, 2010
3,596
1
0
Visit site
CoachFergie said:
Be a good chap and let me know if I have broken any forum rules by broadening the scope of the thread.
And, let me know if I break any rules by bringing you back to the original intent of your thread, to discuss science behind the power meter.
 
FrankDay said:
It is simply that such a benefit has never been shown even by those who have looked like Robinson or as Swart found that the HRM may actually be superior to the power meter. That is what the science says, at least so far.

As Andy said both studies were crap. Swart found no such thing.
 
Sep 23, 2010
3,596
1
0
Visit site
CoachFergie said:
As Andy said both studies were crap. Swart found no such thing.
That, I suppose, is because they don't support his bias. It might be that they are crap but they are published and there are no published studies that come up with a different conclusion. It is the state of the science. It is a fact that very little that we do has been scientifically proven or disproven. It is a lot like medicine. Lots of studies but not much to tell doctors or patients which kind of back surgery is best for what kind of back problems or almost anything else. So, we trust our doctors judgment even though they are frequently, later, shown to be completely wrong. Don't be surprised when the same occurs in the field of exercise science.
 
FrankDay said:
That, I suppose, is because they don't support his bias. It might be that they are crap but they are published and there are no published studies that come up with a different conclusion. It is the state of the science. It is a fact that very little that we do has been scientifically proven or disproven. It is a lot like medicine. Lots of studies but not much to tell doctors or patients which kind of back surgery is best for what kind of back problems or almost anything else. So, we trust our doctors judgment even though they are frequently, later, shown to be completely wrong. Don't be surprised when the same occurs in the field of exercise science.

What a load of waffle.

Both studies got two groups to do the same training and upon testing found neither group were significantly different. Wow, just wow!
 
Sep 23, 2010
3,596
1
0
Visit site
CoachFergie said:
What a load of waffle.

Both studies got two groups to do the same training and upon testing found neither group were significantly different. Wow, just wow!
Doesn't that show that it isn't the feedback device that is important but, rather, the training? If one feedback device were substantially less able to give appropriate feedback then one might see a difference. Their study showed this to not be the case. What is so crap about that?
 
Mar 18, 2009
2,553
0
0
Visit site
FrankDay said:
That, I suppose, is because they don't support his bias.

No, it's because anyone with half-a-brain knows that if you want to test an intervention, you have to actually intervene, i.e., create a difference from whatever it is with which you wish to compare it. Neither of the studies in question were designed to do this...and given the risks involved in any type of human studies research, you have to wonder how they ever got ethical approval to proceed (I know that our HRPO wouldn't let me conduct any study designed so poorly).
 
Mar 18, 2009
2,553
0
0
Visit site
CoachFergie said:
Has RATWAPM not been translated into French?

Pinot actually discussed my idea of power profiling at some length in his thesis. When it came time to write a paper, though, he and Grappe chose to pretend it didn't exist. I raised the issue with the editors, but they apparently lacked the spine to stand up to the authors and publisher and insist on a correction/retraction.
 
FrankDay said:
Doesn't that show that it isn't the feedback device that is important but, rather, the training?

Master of the obvious. That is what we have been saying all along. That the outcome is determined by the intervention. As Andy says you probably won't see a difference in the outcome if you don't actually intervene between the two groups. Good to see you getting up to speed:cool:
 
FrankDay said:
That, I suppose, is because they don't support his bias. It might be that they are crap but they are published and there are no published studies that come up with a different conclusion. It is the state of the science. It is a fact that very little that we do has been scientifically proven or disproven. It is a lot like medicine. Lots of studies but not much to tell doctors or patients which kind of back surgery is best for what kind of back problems or almost anything else. So, we trust our doctors judgment even though they are frequently, later, shown to be completely wrong. Don't be surprised when the same occurs in the field of exercise science.

So in one post you demand that this thread be all about the science (start your own thread if you wish) and then when we present the science or show it is bad you criticise scientific method. Talk about having your cake and eating it!
 

TRENDING THREADS