The Powermeter Thread

[FrankDay]

Ha ha isn't Frank funny.

Yes, was always going to be a stretch using max mean powers as a measure of performance. But even within a group of elite endurance cyclists competing in different events round the World and having different roles and abilities within a race the stats indicate we need better performance metrics to assess the usefulness of the PMC.

I headed in this direction in August and fair to say that Andy Coggan's webinars in November answered a lot of the questions I had hoped to answer with the study. So it's not breaking new ground but highlights many more questions to be answered. Fairly typical for a Masters project.

I guess I am a little confused. I presume you were the one who chose this subject and I presume you chose this expecting it to be both fairly easy and to give results demonstrating a benefit to using a power meter. Then, your results are not what you expected (isn't science funny that way sometimes?). At least we know you, most likely, didn't fabricate your data.

Now we all know that the whole world knows how valuable power meters are to the competitive cyclist. The only problem is I am not aware of a single instance where someone who has tried to scientifically demonstrate the value succeeded in doing so. What can it mean?

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

That having been said, could anyone point me to a single study that demonstrates a power meter provides an advantage for anything?

OK, here's one.
http://coachcolvin.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Measuring_Changes_in_Aerodynamic_Rolling.16.pdf

Seriously Frank, your argument is tired.

The power meter is a measurement device and power is something worth measuring. unless you see no benefit in better understanding the physics, the physiological, the strategic and tactical and skill/execution matters.

 

[CoachFergie]

OK, here's one.
http://coachcolvin.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Measuring_Changes_in_Aerodynamic_Rolling.16.pdf

Seriously Frank, your argument is tired.

The power meter is a measurement device and power is something worth measuring. unless you see no benefit in better understanding the physics, the physiological, the strategic and tactical and skill/execution matters.

Frank was funny, now sad and yes a tired argument. Something the mods have warned him about on here.

The Lim study is still making measurements. The performance improvements come from selecting better tyres and riding in a more aerodynamic position.

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

The Lim study is still making measurements. The performance improvements come from selecting better tyres and riding in a more aerodynamic position.

That's my point.

IOW it is an advantage to have an appropriate measurement device for the outcome sought. Else you cannot know if you are making things better or worse.

 

[CoachFergie]

That's my point.

IOW it is an advantage to have an appropriate measurement device for the outcome sought. Else you cannot know if you are making things better or worse.

Amen to that my good man!

I wonder at the "Science of the Tour de France" conference if anyone will ask me why I use a Power Meter when there is no proof they improve performance

 

[FrankDay]

OK, here's one.
http://coachcolvin.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Measuring_Changes_in_Aerodynamic_Rolling.16.pdf

Seriously Frank, your argument is tired.

The power meter is a measurement device and power is something worth measuring. unless you see no benefit in better understanding the physics, the physiological, the strategic and tactical and skill/execution matters.

There is a difference between showing that a device can be used to do something and showing that there is an advantage (does it do it better, faster, cheaper, etc) over alternative ways of doing the same thing (wind tunnel, coast down testing, eyeball). The question was to show me a study that showed an advantage to the device over alternatives. I am simply unaware of one. (edit: further, regarding the linked study, I suspect that less than 1% of those who own power meters actually use them for the purpose demonstrated in the study.)

I know what you all believe. I am sure Fergie believed that all that TSS data would be shown to be predictive until his own data showed it to not be. So, until there is some science demonstrating a competitive benefit to a power meter the fact remains that science has not shown a benefit even if there is one. Power meters are not the only device/technique lacking such "proof" when it comes to racing. The same can be said for essentially everything we do or use in training/racing.

 

[elapid]

There is a difference between showing that a device can be used to do something and showing that there is an advantage (does it do it better, faster, cheaper, etc)

Seriously Frank, your argument is tired..

Jeezus Frank, you're talking about a measuring device. There is no advantage to using measuring device a and measuring device b. The advantage is in what it measures and the availability of the device - power is the most objective measurement we have of performance. That's why you use it to advertise your cranks and everyone from pros down use it for training. But you know this and yet you persist with your trolling argument that you have been warned by the mods before about. Let it go, Frank. You're the only one making absurd claims about PMs.

 

[FrankDay]

Jeezus Frank, you're talking about a measuring device. There is no advantage to using measuring device a and measuring device b. The advantage is in what it measures and the availability of the device - power is the most objective measurement we have of performance. That's why you use it to advertise your cranks and everyone from pros down use it for training. But you know this and yet you persist with your trolling argument that you have been warned by the mods before about. Let it go, Frank. You're the only one making absurd claims about PMs.

Let's take two Identical (age, weight, height, training time) cyclists, and they both put out 250 watts for a time trial. A year later one has improved to 275 watts while the others power is pretty much the same. Now, if power is the most objective measurement of performance we could (and should) conclude from this that the first rider is now substantially better than the second rider. But, when we look at their time-trial times we find that the second rider is now faster because the second rider has spent more time learning how to improve his aerodynamics whereas the first rider has spent all his time trying to improve his power.

Power is not the most objective measure of performance, it is only a measure of fitness. For example go to this link and look at table 4 and rider G, who averaged only 307 watts for his TT, 13th out of the 15 participants but his time was 7th out of the 15, good enough to make it into the fast group.

Power is just one element involved in bike racing. If it is all you care about then, I guess, it is the best metric to follow. But, if you care about optimizing your performance power is just one element in going faster and knowing what it is has not been shown to make any difference to outcome.

If you are advocating that people should purchase and use power meters for racing and training you should at least be able to tell them one advantage that will come to them from the expenditure.

 

[CoachFergie]

Jeezus Frank, you're talking about a measuring device. There is no advantage to using measuring device a and measuring device b. The advantage is in what it measures and the availability of the device - power is the most objective measurement we have of performance. That's why you use it to advertise your cranks and everyone from pros down use it for training. But you know this and yet you persist with your trolling argument that you have been warned by the mods before about. Let it go, Frank. You're the only one making absurd claims about PMs.

Since track Nationals I have started riding again and have dropped 8kg so far. As well as presenting at the Science of the Tour de France I get to watch the start of the big race a couple of days later.

I know I have lost the weight because I am measuring with a set of scales. I know I am improving on the bike because I am measuring my power. Neither the scales or the power meter improved my performance. Riding harder, resting smarter and showing some control with my diet led to the improvements in performance.

Nice to see Dr Troll would like to confuse people about such a simple concept. But as you say, he is the only one making such claims.

 

[CoachFergie]

Why measurement is so important!

Edit: And precision of measurement is so important.

https://www.ted.com/talks/david_epstein_are_athletes_really_getting_faster_better_stronger

 

[elapid]

Let's take two Identical (age, weight, height, training time) cyclists, and they both put out 250 watts for a time trial. A year later one has improved to 275 watts while the others power is pretty much the same. Now, if power is the most objective measurement of performance we could (and should) conclude from this that the first rider is now substantially better than the second rider. But, when we look at their time-trial times we find that the second rider is now faster because the second rider has spent more time learning how to improve his aerodynamics whereas the first rider has spent all his time trying to improve his power.

Power is not the most objective measure of performance, it is only a measure of fitness. For example go to this link and look at table 4 and rider G, who averaged only 307 watts for his TT, 13th out of the 15 participants but his time was 7th out of the 15, good enough to make it into the fast group.

Power is just one element involved in bike racing. If it is all you care about then, I guess, it is the best metric to follow. But, if you care about optimizing your performance power is just one element in going faster and knowing what it is has not been shown to make any difference to outcome.

If you are advocating that people should purchase and use power meters for racing and training you should at least be able to tell them one advantage that will come to them from the expenditure.

Pooey. Power does not equal fitness. Power is an objective measurement of YOUR performance and YOUR improvement over a period of time, but it cannot be used to compare to the performance of other riders. Power can also be used for determining your limits in a race. Read an article today in Outside Magazine about technology in sports quoting Tens Dam about riders in the pro peloton constantly looking at their PM. They're doing that for a reason, Frank, and it's not because it's not doing anything for them.

 

[CoachFergie]

Pooey. Power does not equal fitness. Power is an objective measurement of YOUR performance and YOUR improvement over a period of time, but it cannot be used to compare to the performance of other riders. Power can also be used for determining your limits in a race. Read an article today in Outside Magazine about technology in sports quoting Tens Dam about riders in the pro peloton constantly looking at their PM. They're doing that for a reason, Frank, and it's not because it's not doing anything for them.

Seriously, your arguing with a guy who claimed short Powercranks led to an hour improvement in a riders time for a race in California even though they were a year apart, different weather, the race was run in the opposite direction and the second year was shorter.

But when a engineering grad (MIT no less) claimed a huge improvement in FTP (a power measurement) Frank was all over it. Till we figured that this MIT had failed to zero his powermeter. You would have thought someone with that level and supposed quality of education would have thought to do something so simple. Or that having a FTP (~60min power) that was higher than his 20min power from a uphill time trial of that duration was a red flag

Dr Troll runs with the hares and hunts with the hounds when it suits him. You would think someone with his education would behave better.

 

[coapman]

But as you say, he is the only one making such claims.

Knowing that trying to reason with addicts is a futile task, the rest don't even attempt it.

 

[CoachFergie]

Yes Noel, clinging on so tightly when all you have is belief.

 

[FrankDay]

Pooey. Power does not equal fitness. Power is an objective measurement of YOUR performance and YOUR improvement over a period of time, but it cannot be used to compare to the performance of other riders. Power can also be used for determining your limits in a race. Read an article today in Outside Magazine about technology in sports quoting Tens Dam about riders in the pro peloton constantly looking at their PM. They're doing that for a reason, Frank, and it's not because it's not doing anything for them.

Of course they are doing that for a reason, they believe it will help them. All I have asked is for some actual data that shows that using a power meter, indeed, does help them beyond what can be done without one. It simply doesn't exist despite efforts to do so. This is the case for many things people do. They wear lucky shirts. They pray to God. They have special pre-race meals. They do these things based upon their belief (or hope) that such will help them even though there is zero evidence that doing so will help them. And, of course, people continue to win races (even at the highest level) without power meters, beating people who do have them. The fact that people believe the device to be important to their performance is not good evidence that it is.

 

[elapid]

Of course they are doing that for a reason, they believe it will help them. All I have asked is for some actual data that shows that using a power meter, indeed, does help them beyond what can be done without one. It simply doesn't exist despite efforts to do so. This is the case for many things people do. They wear lucky shirts. They pray to God. They have special pre-race meals. They do these things based upon their belief (or hope) that such will help them even though there is zero evidence that doing so will help them. And, of course, people continue to win races (even at the highest level) without power meters, beating people who do have them. The fact that people believe the device to be important to their performance is not good evidence that it is.

Frank, a PM is a MEASURING device. It measures something objective called POWER. It does NOT make you better, it does NOT make you faster. You know that, so stop being a troll.

 

[42x16ss]

Frank, two quick questions.

1. Have you ever actually COACHED an athlete over several weeks/months in preparation for an event?

2. If so, how did you gauge their progress and adjust the work load to suit fatigue/improvement and why?

I'm going to ask these questions every day until you answer it.

 

[FrankDay]

Frank, two quick questions.

1. Have you ever actually COACHED an athlete over several weeks/months in preparation for an event?

Myself, does that count? And I have helped many sedentary people train for and complete their first marathon.

2. If so, how did you gauge their progress and adjust the work load to suit fatigue/improvement and why?

Well, as a runner I simply looked at pace vs effort (perceived effort or HR, didn't matter much as they tracked well). When I grew up cycling had never heard of pm's. Again, it would be that we tended to ride the same course day after day. Times for the same course hardly ever varied more than a minute if conditions were similar and traffic lights cooperated. We didn't have a clue what the power was but we knew when we were better and we knew when we were fatigued. I also monitored resting HR in the morning as a check on fatigue also. Anyhow, it isn't that hard and as Fergie just showed us in his study using TSS doesn't help the least bit either, so it seems. So, I guess one makes those calls based on experience. As I continue to point out, there is no evidence that using a pm to make these decisions results in better, more effective, decisions. Don't you ever wonder just how Eddie Merkx (or any other old timer) got so good without a power meter.

I'm going to ask these questions every day until you answer it.

I guess you can stop now. I find it simply incredible that some of you simply don't believe it is possible to train someone to be any good without the aid of a power meter. If that were true it should be quite simple to demonstrate. Again, no one has yet done so.

 

[CoachFergie]

Frank, two quick questions.

1. Have you ever actually COACHED an athlete over several weeks/months in preparation for an event?

2. If so, how did you gauge their progress and adjust the work load to suit fatigue/improvement and why?

I'm going to ask these questions every day until you answer it.

Thorough immersion in Powercranks is my bet.

It's funny that I have put my abstract out there and Frank is the only one that hasn't pulled it to pieces because he thinks it says it's supports his claims. Wiser heads like Andy Coggan, Robert Chung and Alex Simmons have spotted the rather obvious gaps in it.

 

[42x16ss]

Myself, does that count? And I have helped many sedentary people train for and complete their first marathon. Well, as a runner I simply looked at pace vs effort (perceived effort or HR, didn't matter much as they tracked well). When I grew up cycling had never heard of pm's. Again, it would be that we tended to ride the same course day after day. Times for the same course hardly ever varied more than a minute if conditions were similar and traffic lights cooperated. We didn't have a clue what the power was but we knew when we were better and we knew when we were fatigued. I also monitored resting HR in the morning as a check on fatigue also. Anyhow, it isn't that hard and as Fergie just showed us in his study using TSS doesn't help the least bit either, so it seems. So, I guess one makes those calls based on experience. As I continue to point out, there is no evidence that using a pm to make these decisions results in better, more effective, decisions. Don't you ever wonder just how Eddie Merkx (or any other old timer) got so good without a power meter.I guess you can stop now. I find it simply incredible that some of you simply don't believe it is possible to train someone to be any good without the aid of a power meter. If that were true it should be quite simple to demonstrate. Again, no one has yet done so.

So, you are saying that you monitored your athletes, recorded their performances and used the EVIDENCE as a basis for your decisions. So basically, you used evidence based coaching (something you have dismissed as a fad ) combined with experience to make your decisions, like any experienced coach worth their salt.

Look back through the thread, nobody has said that an athlete cannot be coached effectively without a powermeter, just that using a powermeter provides better, more reliable feedback than just about anything else readily available. It simply makes decisions easier to make thanks to better, more reliable evidence.

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

There is a difference between showing that a device can be used to do something and showing that there is an advantage (does it do it better, faster, cheaper, etc) over alternative ways of doing the same thing (wind tunnel, coast down testing, eyeball). The question was to show me a study that showed an advantage to the device over alternatives. I am simply unaware of one. (edit: further, regarding the linked study, I suspect that less than 1% of those who own power meters actually use them for the purpose demonstrated in the study.)

I know what you all believe. I am sure Fergie believed that all that TSS data would be shown to be predictive until his own data showed it to not be. So, until there is some science demonstrating a competitive benefit to a power meter the fact remains that science has not shown a benefit even if there is one. Power meters are not the only device/technique lacking such "proof" when it comes to racing. The same can be said for essentially everything we do or use in training/racing.

It seems you've misunderstood what the study found. But that wouldn't be the first time.

Power meters (well good ones) have been shown time and again to be very good at measuring power.

You are arguing that measuring your power output provides no advantage over not measuring your power output.

 

[JayKosta]

Pooey. Power does not equal fitness. Power is an objective measurement of YOUR performance and YOUR improvement over a period of time, but it cannot be used to compare to the performance of other riders. Power can also be used for determining your limits in a race.
...

------------------------------------------------------------
The 'performance' measured by a PM is only the 'performance of generating power'. It doesn't directly give an indication of changes to 'elapsed race time' or 'race success'.
Of course 'generating power' is very important, and a PM is great for measuring it.

To evaluate whether changes in power generation are beneficial to actual 'riding success', the rider (and/or coach) needs to examine all aspects that go into cycling - such as equipment, position, technique, nutrition, weight, etc. AND THEN identify the item(s) that are most limiting performance, and which can be changed.
If power is the limting factor, then strive to increase it - but take care to not degrade other aspects that would reduce overall 'cycling performance'.

Jay Kosta
Endwell NY USA

 

[elapid]

As I continue to point out, there is no evidence that using a pm to make these decisions results in better, more effective, decisions.

Frank, I know how much you like anecdotes: 1. Floyd Landis in stage 17 of the 2006 TdF frequently quotes that he used his PM to gauge his efforts and knew that he could sustain that pace without blowing up; 2. Chris Froome constantly gauged his efforts by checking his PM every few seconds on big pushes in the 2013 TdF. Two quick and simple examples of how a PM is used to make better and more effective decisions.

Don't you ever wonder just how Eddie Merkx (or any other old timer) got so good without a power meter.

You are trolling yet again Frank. No one is saying that a PM makes you better. No one but you.

 

[elapid]

The 'performance' measured by a PM is only the 'performance of generating power'. It doesn't directly give an indication of changes to 'elapsed race time' or 'race success'.
Of course 'generating power' is very important, and a PM is great for measuring it.

To evaluate whether changes in power generation are beneficial to actual 'riding success', the rider (and/or coach) needs to examine all aspects that go into cycling - such as equipment, position, technique, nutrition, weight, etc. AND THEN identify the item(s) that are most limiting performance, and which can be changed.
If power is the limting factor, then strive to increase it - but take care to not degrade other aspects that would reduce overall 'cycling performance'.

Exactly. Power is an objective metric. Measuring power in itself does not improve performance, make you go faster, or make you more successful in races.

 

[FrankDay]

So, you are saying that you monitored your athletes, recorded their performances and used the EVIDENCE as a basis for your decisions. So basically, you used evidence based coaching (something you have dismissed as a fad ) combined with experience to make your decisions, like any experienced coach worth their salt.

Where have I every dismissed "evidence based coaching" as a fad? In fact, I simply don't understand what the term means when coaches use it to somehow imply that they are using "modern" coaching techniques. Remember this "The Evidence based coaching thread"? As Jay Kosta posted in that thread:

Getting back to "what does evidence-based coaching mean", the discussion shows that it doesn't mean much specifically. Many thoughts about what it should / could / might mean. But they all indicate the need for more precise explanation from the particular coach.

Without the precise explanation from the coach, I lean to 'evidence-based' just being a 'sounds good' marketing label.

It isn't a fad, it is marketing nonsense.

Look back through the thread, nobody has said that an athlete cannot be coached effectively without a powermeter, just that using a powermeter provides better, more reliable feedback than just about anything else readily available. It simply makes decisions easier to make thanks to better, more reliable evidence.

No one disagrees that pm provide feedback. If you consider the advantage that this feedback is simply easier to interpret then I guess that is ok. But, for competitors especially, most people want to know if a different kind of feedback will give them improved racing results. There is zero evidence to support that this method of feedback results in superior racing results over what was done before. It may very well be better but there is no scientific evidence to that effect. Fergies latest attempt to show some real usefulness to this data also failed. That is the issue to me. Why you pm advocates get so hot and bothered over my pointing out this simple fact makes it look like you are part of a cult and I am attacking your leader. I am not. I am simply pointing out there is no scientific support for what is generally implied about the device. This is the case for many things used in athletics. If you don't like that then I suggest that you try to do something about it, like Fergie did, to no avail, I am sure to his dismay.