The Powermeter Thread

[FrankDay]

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.



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

Really, I thought you just gave two anecdotes where F. Landis attributed his performance in stage 17 to his PM (instead of the drugs) and Chris Froome saying something similar and by your posting these anecdotes you are implying that using the device made them better.

I say nothing about the device other than there is no scientific evidence to support its usefulness as a training/racing aid over traditional methods.

Edit: I thought I would add what Fergie wrote when he started this thread:

I would start a power meter thread to discuss the science and practice behind this measurement tool.

If we are going to address the science of this tool then we should address the science. It is not trolling to address the issue originally proposed.

 

[elapid]

Really, I thought you just gave two anecdotes where F. Landis attributed his performance in stage 17 to his PM (instead of the drugs) and Chris Froome saying something similar and by your posting these anecdotes you are implying that using the device made them better.

I say nothing about the device other than there is no scientific evidence to support its usefulness as a training/racing aid over traditional methods.

Edit: I thought I would add what Fergie wrote when he started this thread: If we are going to address the science of this tool then we should address the science. It is not trolling to address the issue originally proposed.

I did not say it made them better, I said that they use it to race better. There's a difference. They had the legs and the training regardless of a PM or not, but with a PM they knew what their limits were and that they were racing within those limits. A PM is just a measuring device, it is how you use the PM that makes the difference. These are just two examples of how their use can be beneficial in a race. Jay Kosta highlighted some other examples of what can make a difference in training and racing, and indirectly coapman has as well, and many of these can be tested with a PM because power is an objective variable. Even you have made the wild claim that your cranks improve power by 40% - even if this were true, it is not the PM that resulted in a 40% improvement, it is your cranks. And, yes, you are trolling because you are making the same claims that we are saying that a PM makes you better when none of us have made that claim. It is just a measuring device, Frank. You don't need a scientific study to confirm that a PM is just that, a measuring device.

 

[FrankDay]

I did not say it made them better, I said that they use it to race better. There's a difference. They had the legs and the training regardless of a PM or not, but with a PM they knew what their limits were and that they were racing within those limits. A PM is just a measuring device, it is how you use the PM that makes the difference. These are just two examples of how their use can be beneficial in a race. Jay Kosta highlighted some other examples of what can make a difference in training and racing, and indirectly coapman has as well, and many of these can be tested with a PM because power is an objective variable. Even you have made the wild claim that your cranks improve power by 40% - even if this were true, it is not the PM that resulted in a 40% improvement, it is your cranks. And, yes, you are trolling because you are making the same claims that we are saying that a PM makes you better when none of us have made that claim. It is just a measuring device, Frank. You don't need a scientific study to confirm that a PM is just that, a measuring device.

Better is better. If there is a difference it should be testable. So far, attempts to demonstrate a difference have failed. The problem of claiming that pm's help people to race better is that many a world championship have been won with either no pm on the bike or the display taped over (for later analysis) over people who used the pm for pacing.

The thread was started to discuss the science of pm's. Where is the science? It is a cop-out to say: "forget the science, it is just a measuring device." Well, for what purpose is this measuring device used? If it is to help people get (race) better (even just a little bit), where is the science it does what is intended?

 

[elapid]

Better is better. If there is a difference it should be testable. So far, attempts to demonstrate a difference have failed. The problem of claiming that pm's help people to race better is that many a world championship have been won with either no pm on the bike or the display taped over (for later analysis) over people who used the pm for pacing.

The thread was started to discuss the science of pm's. Where is the science? It is a cop-out to say: "forget the science, it is just a measuring device." Well, for what purpose is this measuring device used? If it is to help people get (race) better (even just a little bit), where is the science it does what is intended?

Where did I say "forget the science"? Don't misrepresent me, Frank.

 

[FrankDay]

Where did I say "forget the science"? Don't misrepresent me, Frank.

OK, where is the science supporting your view?

Here we have a thread started to discuss the science around this particular device and, as far as I can tell, the only science that has been done has concluded that the device makes no difference.

As far as I am concerned, if you are telling me things the device can do to help the cyclist race better but have no science to back it up then you are, in essence, saying "forget the science."

Can't you just admit your views are based upon conjecture and agree that some science needs to be done to either confirm or reject your ideas.

 

[CoachFergie]

Most amusing that Frank thinks my study is so perfect when many others here and elsewhere have spotted the gaping holes in it. Certainly going to make for an interesting discussion of the methods used, analysis of the data, and what the results mean. The purpose of the study was to assess how well training data over time predicts performance and I found it didn't.

Frank gets a D for science for just accepting what i have written in a abstract, good scientists never do that, and A's all round for people here like Alex and elsewhere for spotting the issues with measuring the power, the statistical analysis used and most obvious, that I am staggered Frank missed it, what I used as a measure of performance.

I guess some people just see what they want to see

 

[elapid]

OK, where is the science supporting your view?

Where is the science supporting my view that a PM is a measuring device? You don't need a scientific study to show that a scale actually measures weight? Or that a HRM measures HR? So why do you need a scientific study that a PM measures power? Really, Frank? I know you're a troll, but I didn't know that you were that mentally challenged.

If you want to know how to use a PM for its intended purpose then refer to the multitude of books and webinars which are available. Oh, wait. You claim that your PowerCranks increase power output by 40%, so you know how to use a PM for its intended purpose, don't you Frank!?!

 

[FrankDay]

Where did I say "forget the science"? Don't misrepresent me, Frank.

You don't need a scientific study to show that a scale actually measures weight? Or that a HRM measures HR? So why do you need a scientific study that a PM measures power?

Your words, not mine.

Anyhow, I will concede that a power meter is a measuring device, no science needed. Now can we move on as to whether that measurement is worth anything to the athlete other than satisfying their curiosity.

 

[CoachFergie]

Where is the science supporting my view that a PM is a measuring device? You don't need a scientific study to show that a scale actually measures weight? Or that a HRM measures HR? So why do you need a scientific study that a PM measures power? Really, Frank? I know you're a troll, but I didn't know that you were that mentally challenged.

If you want to know how to use a PM for its intended purpose then refer to the multitude of books and webinars which are available. Oh, wait. You claim that your PowerCranks increase power output by 40%, so you know how to use a PM for its intended purpose, don't you Frank!?!

Dr Troll is more than happy to use power as a measurement when it suits until lot is shown it was using an uncalibrated PM or the data was falsified.

 

[elapid]

Your words, not mine.

Anyhow, I will concede that a power meter is a measuring device, no science needed. Now can we move on as to whether that measurement is worth anything to the athlete other than satisfying their curiosity.

Or to say that my PowerCranks increase power by 40% ...

 

[FrankDay]

Or to say that my PowerCranks increase power by 40% ...

At least PowerCranks feels so confident in the product that it makes a claim that there is a benefit to the athlete who use them, whether you agree with it or not. The PM manufactures, to their credit, make no such claim.

 

[CoachFergie]

Or to say that my PowerCranks increase power by 40% ...

Nah but then comes the cop out saying that a rider increases speed over a season or their heart rate increased or decreased. Show me a scientific study that uses that as a performance metric.

 

[elapid]

At least PowerCranks feels so confident in the product that it makes a claim that there is a benefit to the athlete who use them, whether you agree with it or not. The PM manufactures, to their credit, make no such claim.

That's because PowerCranks are supposed to improve performance whereas PMs are just a measuring device and make no such claim for good reason. But a PM is a good tool to show the improvements you can make with PowerCranks, or any other variable, over a period of time because of its objectivity. Now, if Power Cranks feel so confident in their product I wonder if they can produce this objective power data to support their claims of a 40% improvement after using their product? That's what a PM is used for, after all.

 

[FrankDay]

Nah but then comes the cop out saying that a rider increases speed over a season or their heart rate increased or decreased. Show me a scientific study that uses that as a performance metric.

Effects of short-term training using powercranks on cardiovascular fitness and cycling efficiency.

The Powercranks group had significantly higher GE values than the normal cranks group (23.6 +/- 1.3% versus 21.3 +/- 1.7%, and 23.9 +/- 1.4% versus 21.0 +/- 1.9% at 45 and 60 min, respectively), and significantly lower HR at 30, 45, and 60 minutes and VO2 at 45 and 60 minutes during the 1-hour submaximal ride posttraining. It appears that 6 weeks of training with Powercranks induced physiological adaptations that reduced energy expenditure during a 1-hour submaximal ride.

 

[FrankDay]

That's because PowerCranks are supposed to improve performance whereas PMs are just a measuring device and make no such claim for good reason. But a PM is a good tool to show the improvements you can make with PowerCranks, or any other variable, over a period of time because of its objectivity. Now, if Power Cranks feel so confident in their product I wonder if they can produce this objective power data to support their claims of a 40% improvement after using their product? That's what a PM is used for, after all.

I guess so, but if one has limited resources would you rather spend your money on a tool that improves your power but be unable to measure that change directly or spend your money on a tool that can measure power but claims to give no improvement in power as a result of that purchase.

PowerCranks feels so confident in what the product does that it gives an unconditional 3 month moneyback guarantee. 3 months is plenty of time for the average user to start to see improvement worth the purchase price. No need to trust what some study says. See if they work for you.

 

[CoachFergie]

That's because PowerCranks are supposed to improve performance whereas PMs are just a measuring device and make no such claim for good reason. But a PM is a good tool to show the improvements you can make with PowerCranks, or any other variable, over a period of time because of its objectivity. Now, if Power Cranks feel so confident in their product I wonder if they can produce this objective power data to support their claims of a 40% improvement after using their product? That's what a PM is used for, after all.

They don't need to buy Powercranks because all the research published in quality journals that used power as the key measurement found they did not improve performance. So there is one performance benefit for owning a power meter or using power meter data is saving you from wasting your time on products that have no proven advantage.

 

[elapid]

I guess so, but if one has limited resources would you rather spend your money on a tool that improves your power but be unable to measure that change directly or spend your money on a tool that can measure power but claims to give no improvement in power as a result of that purchase.

PowerCranks feels so confident in what the product does that it gives an unconditional 3 month moneyback guarantee. 3 months is plenty of time for the average user to start to see improvement worth the purchase price. No need to trust what some study says. See if they work for you.

I would rather see the data and not be exposed to false advertising. But that is for another thread. Suffice is to say, you cannot hide from your PM readings. You either have a 40% improvement or you don't.

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Remember this "The Evidence based coaching thread"? As Jay Kosta posted in that thread:It isn't a fad, it is marketing nonsense.

That's pretty rich.

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

At least PowerCranks feels so confident in the product that it makes a claim that there is a benefit to the athlete who use them, whether you agree with it or not. The PM manufactures, to their credit, make no such claim.

PM manufacturers claim to measure power within certain specifications. That is the performance standard against which they should be judged.

You (still) claim riding your cranks will improve power output by 40%, on average. That is complete and utter bull****.

 

[JayKosta]

Perhaps a 'simple test' of using a PM for 'race success' could be done using a 10k track TT.

Have rider(s) do several 10Ks using 'perceived effort (no PM)',
and also several using predetermined PM levels - based on the science (or feeling) of what PM level would give shortest time).
Of course each test would have to be done in similar situations with the rider being in good condition, etc.

The times for each rider could be analyzed, and results displays. Hopefully some 'conclusions' could also be drawn.

Jay Kosta
Endwell NY USA

 

[FrankDay]

PM manufacturers claim to measure power within certain specifications. That is the performance standard against which they should be judged.

You (still) claim riding your cranks will improve power output by 40%, on average. That is complete and utter bull****.

Would you be happier if I guaranteed everyone a 10% power improvement over 6 months? Would you call that utter bull****? The few who didn't see 10% would probably be about the same number as return the cranks for money back now, 1-2 per thousand.

And, just out of curiosity, how does the end user "judge" whether their power meter is within the manufacturers specifications?

 

[sciguy]

And, just out of curiosity, how does the end user "judge" whether their power meter is within the manufacturers specifications?

Static testing aka a stomp test- Short version - hang a known mass of 20 to 30Kg from the pedal spindle while oriented horizontally and compare to torque value elicited by this action to the value calculated based on the known mass and length of cranks. SRM and Quarq allow one to modify the slope of the frequency/torque relationship if the calculated value is out of spec with value in current use as may happen with a change of chain rings.

You have already done this with your Icranks haven't you?

Hugh

 

[FrankDay]

Static testing aka a stomp test- Short version - hang a known mass of 20 to 30Kg from the pedal spindle while oriented horizontally and compare to torque value elicited by this action to the value calculated based on the known mass and length of cranks. SRM and Quarq allow one to modify the slope of the frequency/torque relationship if the calculated value is out of spec with value in current use as may happen with a change of chain rings.

You have already done this with your Icranks haven't you?

Hugh

You are concerned that indoor testing (comparing iCranks to Velotron) does not replicate road testing and you think a static load test replicates road stresses? OK. If you say so.

As I said, I really don't care that much about how accurate a PM is as accuracy is of little importance in measuring whether one is better or not. What is important here is the reproducibility of the data. Do you get the same number for the same power time after time. This way, one can know if the number is getting bigger then they are getting better and by what percentage. Accuracy is really only important if one is trying to compare data between two different meters on the same person.

 

[sciguy]

My answer was to this question lest your forgot.

And, just out of curiosity, how does the end user "judge" whether their power meter is within the manufacturers specifications?

It would seem that you didn't realize that an end user could quite easily test the accuracy of their power meter. Of course now I'm sure you'll bet that only one in a thousand does

You are concerned that indoor testing (comparing iCranks to Velotron) does not replicate road testing and you think a static load test replicates road stresses? OK. If you say so.

Where did I say that? Really I was just poking fun at the fact that you seem not to know that a power meter can be tested for accuracy by its user. After all the years you've spent hanging out here it's surprising that one got past you.

Hugh

 

[FrankDay]

It would seem that you didn't realize that an end user could quite easily test the accuracy of their power meter. Of course now I'm sure you'll bet that only one in a thousand does

What percentage of power meter owners do you think do that? Not what percentage of your friends but what percentage of all owners.

Where did I say that? Really I was just poking fun at the fact that you seem not to know that a power meter can be tested for accuracy by its user. After all the years you've spent hanging out here it's surprising that one got past you.

Sure, I know a PM can be tested for accuracy. I told you how I would do it (compare it to a Velotron) and you told me that indoors and outdoors were not the same thing. But, you tell me a static load test calibrates the machine so now you are the one comparing an indoor (static even) test to what happens on the road. Get your stories straight.

Anyhow, I have told you that I don't care (for my own purposes) if a pm is accurate as long as it reliably reflects changes in power. I presume you agree with that sentiment since you haven't challenged it.