• We're giving away a Cyclingnews water bottle! Find out more here!

The Powermeter Thread

Page 8 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Mar 18, 2009
2,121
0
0
CoachFergie said:
Yes Andy, how would you design a Strawman study? Could you improve on Dr Swart:D
'

If my colleagues think I could defend Brooks' misguided "crossover concept" idea better than he could, I ought to be able to design a better strawman study than Swart et al.'s. :)
 
Mar 18, 2009
2,121
0
0
FrankDay said:
Dr. Coggan believes, when he wrote that book, that there were "benefits" to using a power meter over not using one.
Absolutely (he writes sitting under his wife's framed national champion's jersey).

FrankDay said:
Or, is it better to ignore scientific validation if none is expected to exist?
Science isn't always the best way of answering questions.
 
Mar 18, 2009
2,121
0
0
FrankDay said:
Power is just one component of overall performance.
Albeit a critical one, and the one that all of any athlete's training (vs. other aspects of their preparation) is intended to improve. That's why powermeters have been such a boon: you can readily determine whether your training is working or not, and change things accordingly (a point that Swart et al. failed to grasp).
 
Mar 18, 2009
2,121
0
0
CoachFergie said:
WKO+ allows me to set up charts looking at what I see but I need GC to download two files into excel to publish that chart I used a few pages ago.
Comparing your PowerTap and SRM? You could have exported that data from WKO+ as well.
 
Mar 18, 2009
2,121
0
0
FrankDay said:
Hey, if you're going to post links to reviews you might as well let people read all of them, and judge for themselves:

http://www.amazon.com/Training-Racing-Power-Meter-Hunter/product-reviews/1934030554/ref=dp_top_cm_cr_acr_txt?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=1

(BTW, I know (of) Chris Harnish, who wrote the negative review to which you linked...I think he's just ****ed at me because of the way I corrected him when he posted misinformation about exercise physiology on some forum or another at one point. Alternatively and/or in addition, based on reports of those who had him in their classes when he was getting his master's degree, he's just an all-around negative person.)
 
When using a power meter for training, is there an 'accepted method' for correlating the PM data with the 'physical condition' at the time - e.g, heart rate, VO2 usage, perceived exertion, etc.?

Also, have there been studies that compare PM data with relative perceived exertion to evaluate the accuracy & repeatability of RPE?

Jay Kosta
Endwell NY USA
 
Sep 23, 2010
3,194
0
0
acoggan said:
'

If my colleagues think I could defend Brooks' misguided "crossover concept" idea better than he could, I ought to be able to design a better strawman study than Swart et al.'s. :)
Everyone knows you ought to be able to do so. However, you, apparently, won't even try on just a theoretical basis because "science isn't always the best way of answering some questions" even though in this case you won't tell us what you consider the best way is.

Apparently this approach to training, that you consider to be superior, is just to difficult to study (in your mind anyhow) to show your opinion (and your book) to be correct.
 
Sep 23, 2010
3,194
0
0
acoggan said:
Albeit a critical one, and the one that all of any athlete's training (vs. other aspects of their preparation) is intended to improve. That's why powermeters have been such a boon: you can readily determine whether your training is working or not, and change things accordingly (a point that Swart et al. failed to grasp).
Really? Athletes are focused on power to the detriment of all other aspects of training. Would you say that for endurance in the RAAM rider? Or, aerodynamic improvements for the TT rider?

Power meters are such a boon because people have come to believe that knowing their power number will help them to improve their power number. Such belief has come about despite zero evidence to support it.
 
Sep 23, 2010
3,194
0
0
acoggan said:
Hey, if you're going to post links to reviews you might as well let people read all of them, and judge for themselves:

http://www.amazon.com/Training-Racing-Power-Meter-Hunter/product-reviews/1934030554/ref=dp_top_cm_cr_acr_txt?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=1

(BTW, I know (of) Chris Harnish, who rode the negative review to which you linked...I think he's just ****ed at me because of the way I corrected him when he posted misinformation about exercise physiology on some forum or another at one point. Alternatively and/or in addition, based on reports of those who had him in their classes when he was getting his master's degree, he's just an all-around negative person.)
Perhaps you are just ****ed at me because of the way I have corrected you on your misinterpretation of some exercise physiology data on some forum or another at one point.
 
Apr 21, 2009
2,686
0
0
FrankDay said:
Everyone knows you ought to be able to do so. However, you, apparently, won't even try on just a theoretical basis because "science isn't always the best way of answering some questions" even though in this case you won't tell us what you consider the best way is.

Apparently this approach to training, that you consider to be superior, is just to difficult to study (in your mind anyhow) to show your opinion (and your book) to be correct.
More trolling.
 
Apr 21, 2009
2,686
0
0
FrankDay said:
Perhaps you are just ****ed at me because of the way I have corrected you on your misinterpretation of some exercise physiology data on some forum or another at one point.
More trolling. Provide a link showing this.
 
Apr 21, 2009
2,686
0
0
FrankDay said:
Power meters are such a boon because people have come to believe that knowing their power number will help them to improve their power number. Such belief has come about despite zero evidence to support it.
More trolling. Are we to blame that people read too much into what a power meter will do for you.
 
Sep 23, 2010
3,194
0
0
CoachFergie said:
More trolling. Provide a link showing this.
Coggan didn't provide a link so I don't think I will either. He knows of what I speak. Besides, this isn't the thread to start arguing physiology. Let's try to stay on target.
 
Apr 21, 2009
2,686
0
0
FrankDay said:
Coggan didn't provide a link so I don't think I will either. He knows of what I speak. Besides, this isn't the thread to start arguing physiology. Let's try to stay on target.
Nice dodge. Yes Frank, keep trolling.
 
Mar 18, 2009
2,121
0
0
FrankDay said:
Apparently this approach to training, that you consider to be superior, is just to difficult to study (in your mind anyhow) to show your opinion (and your book) to be correct.
Correctamundo.
 
Mar 18, 2009
2,121
0
0
FrankDay said:
I have corrected you on your misinterpretation of some exercise physiology data on some forum or another at one point.
Only in your dreams, Frank...only in your dreams.
 
Mar 18, 2009
2,121
0
0
FrankDay said:
Really? Athletes are focused on power to the detriment of all other aspects of training. Would you say that for endurance in the RAAM rider? Or, aerodynamic improvements for the TT rider?
Endurance = generating more power for a given duration.

Improving aerodynamics = an aspect of athlete preparation other than training (although, ironically, one that a powermeter helps a lot with).
 
Sep 23, 2010
3,194
0
0
acoggan said:
Only in your dreams, Frank...only in your dreams.
My friend, ignorance is bliss.

When you can provide a mechanism to explain why CO (edit: for the non-physiologists CO = cardiac output) DROPS OFF (as opposed to just leveling off) that is completely internal to the heart then I will accept your contention that performance is limited by the heart.

And, I would be interested in hearing your explanation as to why, when we see the heart failing like this at VO2max that so few people die during this test if the heart is the limiter and we push it that hard. People don't even complain of chest pain.
 
Mar 18, 2009
2,121
0
0
FrankDay said:
My friend, ignorance is bliss.

When you can provide a mechanism to explain why CO (edit: for the non-physiologists CO = cardiac output) DROPS OFF (as opposed to just leveling off) that is completely internal to the heart then I will accept your contention that performance is limited by the heart.
Inadequate filling time. (Note that I'm ignoring your strawman assertion that it must be the heart, and not the cardiovascular system, that is the limiting factor.)

FrankDay said:
And, I would be interested in hearing your explanation as to why, when we see the heart failing like this at VO2max that so few people die during this test if the heart is the limiter and we push it that hard. People don't even complain of chest pain.
Because the heart isn't ischemic, it's just been pushed to/beyond it's maximal pumping capacity.

BTW, Frank, next Thursday I'm going to be explaining this (and other) factors influencing VO2max to my cardiologist colleagues here at Wash U (one of the top 10 medical schools in world, BTW)...perhaps you'd like to pop by and pick up a few CEU yourself? (Oh wait, that's right: you aren't a licensed physician, and in fact haven't been one in years.)
 
Sep 23, 2010
3,194
0
0
acoggan said:
Inadequate filling time. (Note that I'm ignoring your strawman assertion that it must be the heart, and not the cardiovascular system, that is the limiting factor.)
That, my friend, in not a mechanism. Besides, in general, HR doesn't change much at VO2 max hence filling time should not change to explain the drop in output.
Because the heart isn't ischemic, it's just been pushed to/beyond it's maximal pumping capacity.

BTW, Frank, next Thursday I'm going to be explaining this (and other) factors influencing VO2max to my cardiologist colleagues here at Wash U (one of the top 10 medical schools in world, BTW)...perhaps you'd like to pop by and pick up a few CEU yourself? (Oh wait, that's right: you aren't a licensed physician, and in fact haven't been one in years.)
LOL. Filling time decreases as HR increases at all heart rates. What "pushes" the heart beyond its maximum pumping capacity? Why does the "maximum pumping capacity" of the heart depend upon how it is measured (running, cycling, rowing, etc)? When you explain it to the real experts in cardiac physiology, the cardiac anesthesiologists, let me know. It would be worth a chuckle or two to be there. Ask them what they think of your filling time "mechanism" to explain the drop at VO2 max. I doubt the cardiologists will buy your explanation either because there is no data to support what you say. But, as I said before, ignorance is bliss.

BTW, did you know I was a teaching perfessor at UCSF Medical School, Dept of Anesthesiology, considered by many to be the top anesthesiology department in the nation, when I retired from medicine? But, perhaps I forgot everything I knew or since then the knowledge that was known then all got turned on its head.

Anyhow, I am still looking forward to hearing about your mechanism to explain this phenomenon. Feel free to invoke the entire CV system if you wish (although I wouldn't consider the entire CV system as "central" and it won't help anyhow).
 
Jul 10, 2010
2,659
0
0
I just purged a few posts that were strictly personal attacks and not really on topic.

I left others, including some that quoted the deleted posts. Why? Because they also offered something pertinent to the REAL conversation.

That should be sufficient clarity.
 
Apr 21, 2009
2,686
0
0
JayKosta said:
When using a power meter for training, is there an 'accepted method' for correlating the PM data with the 'physical condition' at the time - e.g, heart rate, VO2 usage, perceived exertion, etc.?

Also, have there been studies that compare PM data with relative perceived exertion to evaluate the accuracy & repeatability of RPE?
1. I don't. Either a rider can do the power or they can't. You could pair heart rate with a power level (as the Cycleops PowerCalc attempts to do to estimate power) but from the testing riders who tried it here have it doesn't work too well. You can determine Wattage at VO2max. But most people now just do the test without measuring VO2max as the power is the main thing to look at.

2. There are numerous studies on RPE and again it would be easy to classify a power output compared to the Borg Scale but if you have the power there are several ways to determine thresholds and training zones to guide your training.

Rather than use RPE or give a specific power target I talk in terms of 500m TT power or 40km TT power and will use the power meter to quantify the effort. Of course as they get fitter the power they can deliver will increase but the perceived effort of a maximal 40km time trial will not.
 
Apr 21, 2009
2,686
0
0
Just as an indication of how speed doesn't match with power, unless of course all else is equal, and it never is.

23 year old rider from a 16km time trial in Dec - Feb on the same course.

Km Time Speed Power
16 20:06.000 47.76 422
16 20:05.000 47.80 412
16 19:50.000 48.40 423
16 19:45.000 48.61 425
16 20:26.000 46.98 408
16 20:12.000 47.52 427
16 19:55.000 48.20 435
16 19:54.000 48.24 423
16 19:55.000 48.20 431
16 19:29.000 49.27 429
16 20:00.000 48.00 420

Fit

N  11

Equation  Speed = 28.64 + 0.04597 Power

R²  0.368
R² adjusted  0.298
SE of fit (RMSE)  0.5000

Parameter  Estimate 95% CI SE
Constant 28.64 9.404 to 47.87 8.5016
Power 0.04597 5.332 E-04 to 0.09141 0.020087
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS