The Powermeter Thread

[JayKosta]

Sounds to me like a PM can function as both the 'carrot' and the 'stick' to induce the rider to do more useful training.

The PM doesn't 'produce' the results, but it can 'encourage the needed training'.

And in competition it can alert the rider about when he is above or below a desired power output level.

Jay Kosta
Endwell NY USA

 

[FrankDay]

Sounds to me like a PM can function as both the 'carrot' and the 'stick' to induce the rider to do more useful training.

The PM doesn't 'produce' the results, but it can 'encourage the needed training'.

And in competition it can alert the rider about when he is above or below a desired power output level.

Jay Kosta
Endwell NY USA

Again, despite the potential here, there is no evidence that it is useful as either a carrot or a stick or a monitor.

If I were a coach I would tell my athletes to tape over the meter for all efforts and then I would ask them to ride at a certain level and, then, before downloading the data, predict what they actually did. The reason for this would be to get the athlete to become more self-aware of reading themselves instead of depending on the number before them. I doubt many use the device in this manner.

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

anecdote implying cause and effect.

The irony/hypocrisy of this from you is delicious.

 

[CoachFergie]

The irony/hypocrisy of this from you is delicious.

Well in all fairness Frank's latest piece of anecdote implying cause and effect was removed, twice, and I am sure he has learnt the error of his ways and will never do it again.

 

[elapid]

Again, despite the potential here, there is no evidence that it is useful as either a carrot or a stick or a monitor.

If I were a coach I would tell my athletes to tape over the meter for all efforts and then I would ask them to ride at a certain level and, then, before downloading the data, predict what they actually did. The reason for this would be to get the athlete to become more self-aware of reading themselves instead of depending on the number before them. I doubt many use the device in this manner.

So despite your assertions that a PM is not a carrot, a stick or useful as a monitor, you still want to use it as your baseline to correlate perceived effort with output? Funny, the paper which found no difference between HRM and PM also used PM for baseline and followup data. Do you ever wonder why a PM is not a stick or a useful monitor but everyone, including you, uses or proposes to use it as their gold standard to compare all other outcome measures (whether it be perceived effort or HRM)?

 

[JayKosta]

I think much of this debate is about the fine distinction of what type of tool or activity actually 'improves' performance, and what might 'help improve performance'.
Is all the debate about semantics?

e.g.
Doing good training can improve performance.

Perhaps training with a heavier bike can improve some aspects of performance.

Getting the best fit / position on the bike can improve performance.

Perhaps training with PowerCranks can improve performance in situations IF the 'natural pedaling technique' CAUSES reduced power output due to negative torque, etc.

Devices such as a coach, PM, HRM, stopwatch, RPE, etc. can 'assist and help' achieve, measure, and monitor the actual training, but they don't DIRECTLY improve performance.

Jay Kosta
Endwell NY USA

 

[FrankDay]

So despite your assertions that a PM is not a carrot, a stick or useful as a monitor, you still want to use it as your baseline to correlate perceived effort with output? Funny, the paper which found no difference between HRM and PM also used PM for baseline and followup data. Do you ever wonder why a PM is not a stick or a useful monitor but everyone, including you, uses or proposes to use it as their gold standard to compare all other outcome measures (whether it be perceived effort or HRM)?

LOL. Power meters are the gold standard for comparing effort because it is the only objective measure of effort of the three with a clear meaning (everyone knows what a watt is) and other methods, such as speed and timed course have confounding factors involved such as weather and aerodynamics. However, the fact it is a useful device for objectively measuring effort doesn't, in and of itself, make it more valuable as a training or racing tool. That is my objection to the belief that because of this one benefit, useful to those doing studies on cycling, leads to the conclusion that using one helps one to get better than not using one. There is zero evidence to support that conclusion and, in fact, an argument can be made that using one can inhibit progress (although, of course, there is no evidence to support that conclusion either).

There is no doubt that you can point to an 20 watt improvement over time is an indication that you have improved. However, that does not mean that you are better because you have a power meter, all you have is a number change to "prove" you are better than you were. The evidence suggests that others doing similar training without power meters will see identical gains. They just won't have a number to point to. But, I'll bet all of them know they are better also.

 

[elapid]

LOL. Power meters are the gold standard for comparing effort because it is the only objective measure of effort of the three with a clear meaning (everyone knows what a watt is) and other methods, such as speed and timed course have confounding factors involved such as weather and aerodynamics. However, the fact it is a useful device for objectively measuring effort doesn't, in and of itself, make it more valuable as a training or racing tool. That is my objection to the belief that because of this one benefit, useful to those doing studies on cycling, leads to the conclusion that using one helps one to get better than not using one. There is zero evidence to support that conclusion and, in fact, an argument can be made that using one can inhibit progress (although, of course, there is no evidence to support that conclusion either).

There is no doubt that you can point to an 20 watt improvement over time is an indication that you have improved. However, that does not mean that you are better because you have a power meter, all you have is a number change to "prove" you are better than you were. The evidence suggests that others doing similar training without power meters will see identical gains. They just won't have a number to point to. But, I'll bet all of them know they are better also.

Frank, still doesn't change the fact that you use a PM to sell your product and you propose to correlate perceived effort with a PM. You can't live without it, but can't admit to your dependence on it? Maybe there should be PM's Anonymous for you?

 

[FrankDay]

I think much of this debate is about the fine distinction of what type of tool or activity actually 'improves' performance, and what might 'help improve performance'.
Is all the debate about semantics?

e.g.
Doing good training can improve performance.

I think we can all agree on this

Perhaps training with a heavier bike can improve some aspects of performance.

Perhaps, no evidence to back that up.

Getting the best fit / position on the bike can improve performance.

Probably, but no evidence to back that up.

Perhaps training with PowerCranks can improve performance in situations IF the 'natural pedaling technique' CAUSES reduced power output due to negative torque, etc.

Probably, no evidence to back that up. Edit: scant evidence to back that up. I forgot Dixon and Luttrell.

Devices such as a coach, PM, HRM, stopwatch, RPE, etc. can 'assist and help' achieve, measure, and monitor the actual training, but they don't DIRECTLY improve performance.

Coaches do not do the work but they can be beneficial in several ways. They generally have more experience and knowledge than the client so they can help them better guide their efforts to maximize the stress/recovery efforts for the kind of race that is being trained for. Plus, coaches can impart knowledge and experience to help the client to better pacing and tactics as they gain their own racing experience. the PM, HRM, stopwatch, RPE, etc are nothing more than feedback devices to gauge effort and for testing. There is no evidence one is better than another in helping the athlete improve performance.

 

[CoachFergie]

Frank, still doesn't change the fact that you use a PM to sell your product and you propose to correlate perceived effort with a PM. You can't live without it, but can't admit to your dependence on it? Maybe there should be PM's Anonymous for you?

Sounds like old age is starting to kick in and Frank is a little confused about what he is saying.

Keen to know what HR or RPE it takes to win the Tour de France

 

[elapid]

Keen to know what HR or RPE it takes to win the Tour de France

Should only take n=3 for solid, statistically sound results

 

[JayKosta]

...
Keen to know what HR or RPE it takes to win the Tour de France

=======================================
or Power number.

Yes, you can probably list some power numbers for people who have won, but there is probably a longer list of non-winners with same or higher numbers.

Jay Kosta
Endwell NY USA

 

[elapid]

=======================================
or Power number.

Yes, you can probably list some power numbers for people who have won, but there is probably a longer list of non-winners with same or higher numbers.

Jay Kosta
Endwell NY USA

True. For the mountains, W/kg is likely a relevant measurement; but for most other disciplines an absolute power measurement is probably not a relevant indication of success either in the discipline or overall for a stage race (depending on the number of mountain stages). However, knowing your own limits (power over a period of time*) likely helps gauge your efforts and know when you can keep pushing or when you will bonk if you continue to push the same numbers. Obviously there are many other factors involved in winning any race, whether it be a one-day or multi week stage race, which go beyond pure numbers alone, such as team strength, team tactics, race tactics and tactical nous (especially with no race radios), crashes (i.e. Garmin-Sharp in the TTT at the Giro), intangibles, etc.

*RPE may also be relevant; but it is old school and very subjective and nearly all pros (if not all) use PMs and, in a race, most likely for the reasons stated above rather than rely on RPE. Floyd Landis was a big proponent of RPE for many years, but then became a strong advocate for PMs because of his ability to gauge his efforts during a race based on his training performances.

 

[CoachFergie]

=======================================
or Power number.

Yes, you can probably list some power numbers for people who have won, but there is probably a longer list of non-winners with same or higher numbers.

Power to weight, Power to frontal area, allometric scaled power, quadrant analysis etc.

What is amusing is the estimation of power of riders on selected climbs to try and out them as drug users.

 

[CoachFergie]

http://cyclist.com.au/beat-generation

Hmmmmm, Alex, Ric, Andy, we still have some edumacating to do!!!

 

[elapid]

http://cyclist.com.au/beat-generation

Hmmmmm, Alex, Ric, Andy, we still have some edumacating to do!!!

It would help if the author, writing for a cycling website, could spell "peloton" correctly!

 

[sciguy]

It would help if the author, writing for a cycling website, could spell "peloton" correctly!

Obviously the Australian variant

Hugh

 

[42x16ss]

=======================================
or Power number.

Yes, you can probably list some power numbers for people who have won, but there is probably a longer list of non-winners with same or higher numbers.

Jay Kosta
Endwell NY USA

True, but someone who can put out at least 5.8 W/Kg on a final climb after 4 or more hours of racing will always be in with a genuine chance if they are smart and can stay upright.

 

[CoachFergie]

Just saying...

Tour of Poland 2013, Jul 31: "@taylorphinney: 488w (509 NP) for 10min. 52.4kph. 1st 20sec:940w, 1st min:640w, 1st 2 min: 574w 1st 5min:500w"

 

[JayKosta]

Just saying...

=========================================

Saying what?

Yes, obsiously he produced huge power numbers.
But without comparison to other pro riders, what does it show?

Is there any indication that he actually based his effort on a PM (or was it RPE) during that 10 minute period to pace himself?

Jay Kosta
Endwell NY USA

 

[CoachFergie]

Yes, obsiously he produced huge power numbers.
But without comparison to other pro riders, what does it show?

Who says it is not being compared with other riders. Dan Healey, a Kiwi, is the Power Meter guy for BMC. Sure he will compare Taylor's file with other riders in the team.

Probably more important he will compare with power from Taylor's previous efforts to try and determine part of what went into a winning performance to make sure he can do it again.

Is there any indication that he actually based his effort on a PM (or was it RPE) during that 10 minute period to pace himself?

None whatsoever.

 

[CoachFergie]

http://www.srm.de/news/road-cycling/tour-of-california-stage-5/

You will note at no point does he say he couldn't have won without his power meter, nor do SRM make such a claim.

Just a handy tool of the trade to measure his performance to ensure he is training and racing right to enjoy more sweet victory's like that.

 

[JayKosta]

...
Just a handy tool of the trade to measure his performance to ensure he is training and racing right to enjoy more sweet victory's like that.

------------------------------------------------

The PM doesn't ensure he is doing it 'right' or 'best' - he has to make that decision based on measurements and his judgement.

Jay Kosta
Endwell NY USA

 

[42x16ss]

------------------------------------------------

The PM doesn't ensure he is doing it 'right' or 'best' - he has to make that decision based on measurements and his judgement.

Jay Kosta
Endwell NY USA

True. People failing to understand this is the reason that the thread has gone on for 106 pages.

Having said that, if the correct decisions are being made re: training, won't the collected power data confirm this better than anything else?

 

[CoachFergie]

The PM doesn't ensure he is doing it 'right' or 'best' - he has to make that decision based on measurements and his judgement.

If we don't measure performance how else are we meant to ensure he is training and racing right?

What if his judgement is wrong? I mean he allegedly uses independent cranks because Cadel told him to rather than looking at the wealth of research showing they to don't improve performance in controlled studies published in quality peer review journals.