The Powermeter Thread

[FrankDay]

Reminds me of the saying...

If everyone says there is a problem, then it may be real. If only one or two people have the problem then maybe the problem is them.

You forgot, if everyone says there is not a problem, watch out.

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

What a bunch of suckers cyclists are, PM's appear to have taken over now that dead spot elimination equipment has come to an end. Have to agree with Frank, the only useful PM's are those that can give reliable torque readings and if possible the wasted force around the entire 360 deg. of the pedaling circle. If given the choice, I would select PC's before a 'power only' PM.

Testimonial of the year for Frank.

 

[FrankDay]

Testimonial of the year for Frank.

For what it is worth I don't believe his comment qualifies as a testimonial.

In promotion and of advertising, a testimonial or show consists of a person's written or spoken statement extolling the virtue of a product. The term "testimonial" most commonly applies to the sales-pitches attributed to ordinary citizens, whereas the word "endorsement" usually applies to pitches by celebrities. Testimonials can be part of communal marketing.

I believe his remark refers more to the quality of the arguments regarding the benefits of using a power meter (since this is a power meter thread).

 

[elapid]

@ Frank and coapman - You claim your cranks and position/setup, respectively, increase power (up to 40% according to Frank). You don't mention any other metric to measure the improvement in performance with what you are trying to sell. But, despite obviously recognizing the importance of power to performance on the bike, you continue to denigrate PMs. The studies you cite to support your position that PMs are not better than HRMs for training purposes all use a PM to establish a baseline and to serially measure improvements, hence proving that a PM is still the best measure of performance. Tapeworm provides a paper showing the benefits of a PM in a racing situation, as well as the deficiencies of a HRM in such a situation, and yet you still continue to espouse the uselessness of PMs. Beyond your academic musings, in real world situations (training and racing) I cannot see how you can justify your position when you use power as the only metric to sell the benefits of cranks/pedalling technique and, at the very least, PMs are used as the gold standard in all scientific studies measuring cyclists's performance.

 

[FrankDay]

@ Frank and coapman - You claim your cranks and position/setup, respectively, increase power (up to 40% according to Frank). You don't mention any other metric to measure the improvement in performance with what you are trying to sell. But, despite obviously recognizing the importance of power to performance on the bike, you continue to denigrate PMs. The studies you cite to support your position that PMs are not better than HRMs for training purposes all use a PM to establish a baseline and to serially measure improvements, hence proving that a PM is still the best measure of performance. Tapeworm provides a paper showing the benefits of a PM in a racing situation, as well as the deficiencies of a HRM in such a situation, and yet you still continue to espouse the uselessness of PMs. Beyond your academic musings, in real world situations (training and racing) I cannot see how you can justify your position when you use power as the only metric to sell the benefits of cranks/pedalling technique and, at the very least, PMs are used as the gold standard in all scientific studies measuring cyclists's performance.

The question is not whether power is important or not, it obviously is. The question is whether knowing or measuring ones power helps one to train or race better than if one doesn't know it. In my opinion power comes from how you train, not whether you own a power meter. Those without a power meter seemingly train just as well as those who have them as many, many cyclists have done (and continue to do) just fine training and racing without a power meter. So, where is the advantage of measuring the power number? One goes the same speed whether one knows what the number is or not. At least Coapman and I claim an advantage for each of our viewpoints (I think they are related except Coapman pays no attention to the backstroke whereas I do). At least our claims can be tested. I see no one claiming an advantage for owning a PM. If there is no advantage (and no one even claims a specific advantage to owning one) what is to test and why drop around $1000 to get one?

Edit: and I do mention another metric that my customers see, I say that most will see a 2-3 mph speed improvement (which happens to correlate pretty well with a 40% power improvement for many) AND, for those who run, running improvements also, typically a minute per mile faster in 3 months.

edit2: So, while you may not believe my 40% power improvement claim let's say I only claim a 1% power improvement claim - that 1% is still more than anyone is claiming for a power meter. So, do I spend my $1000 getting a device that no one can tell me how much faster it will make me (and doesn't come with a money back guarantee) or should I spend my $1000 on a device that claims to make me better (even though many don't believe it is possible) that also comes with a money back guarantee? I mean, really, defend spending that money on a power meter that just measures power. What is that purchase going to get me? Now, if we are talking 2nd generation power meters that can measure technique, the argument changes.

 

[elapid]

The question is not whether power is important or not, it obviously is. The question is whether knowing or measuring ones power helps one to train or race better than if one doesn't know it. In my opinion power comes from how you train, not whether you own a power meter. Those without a power meter seemingly train just as well as those who have them as many, many cyclists have done (and continue to do) just fine training and racing without a power meter. So, where is the advantage of measuring the power number? One goes the same speed whether one knows what the number is or not. At least Coapman and I claim an advantage for each of our viewpoints (I think they are related except Coapman pays no attention to the backstroke whereas I do). At least our claims can be tested. I see no one claiming an advantage for owning a PM. If there is no advantage (and no one even claims a specific advantage to owning one) what is to test and why drop around $1000 to get one?

Edit: and I do mention another metric that my customers see, I say that most will see a 2-3 mph speed improvement (which happens to correlate pretty well with a 40% power improvement for many) AND, for those who run, running improvements also, typically a minute per mile faster in 3 months.

edit2: So, while you may not believe my 40% power improvement claim let's say I only claim a 1% power improvement claim - that 1% is still more than anyone is claiming for a power meter. So, do I spend my $1000 getting a device that no one can tell me how much faster it will make me (and doesn't come with a money back guarantee) or should I spend my $1000 on a device that claims to make me better (even though many don't believe it is possible) that also comes with a money back guarantee? I mean, really, defend spending that money on a power meter that just measures power. What is that purchase going to get me? Now, if we are talking 2nd generation power meters that can measure technique, the argument changes.

This is where you continually distort the argument. We all know that a PM in itself does not make you faster. No one is claiming that it does. However, a PM is the only useful device to measure outcomes objectively (ie, how successful is your training) and in real-time with no lag time or influence from external variables. This is why researchers use power as the gold standard for measuring cycling performance and this is why Atkinson et al showed the superiority of a PM during a TT race over three different types of courses.

Both you and coapman have made some rather outlandish claims of the degree of improvement in power seen when using either your cranks or position/pedaling style, respectively. The only objective method to validate your claims is to measure power output. However, you both decline to do so. This is where you both fail because it would be so, so easy to objectively measure these outcomes, but by refusing to do so is basically admitting to the failure of your cranks and position/pedalling style. BTW, a 40% increase in power output would not equate to a 2-3mph increase in speed, unless your speed is pitifully slow to begin with (which is another example of the usefulness of measuring power compared to other metrics).

 

[FrankDay]

This is where you continually distort the argument. We all know that a PM in itself does not make you faster. No one is claiming that it does. However, a PM is the only useful device to measure outcomes objectively (ie, how successful is your training) and in real-time with no lag time or influence from external variables. This is why researchers use power as the gold standard for measuring cycling performance and this is why Atkinson et al showed the superiority of a PM during a TT race over three different types of courses.

Both you and coapman have made some rather outlandish claims of the degree of improvement in power seen when using either your cranks or position/pedaling style, respectively. The only objective method to validate your claims is to measure power output. However, you both decline to do so. This is where you both fail because it would be so, so easy to objectively measure these outcomes, but by refusing to do so is basically admitting to the failure of your cranks and position/pedalling style. BTW, a 40% increase in power output would not equate to a 2-3mph increase in speed, unless your speed is pitifully slow to begin with (which is another example of the usefulness of measuring power compared to other metrics).

I am not distorting anything. If all you want is an "objective" measure of where you are then, go ahead and spend that $1k. The fact that knowing that information has no effect on where you are or where you will be seems to be lost on you and everyone else. That is the point, there seems to be no point to this device if the subject is actually interested in something that will actually help them to improve beyond what can be done without it.

It is true that power meters objectively measure power and power is important to how fast one can go. That is important to researchers as they need objective measurements to test claims. But, the power meter manufacturers make no claim that it provides the cyclist any competitive benefit so, if I am a researcher, it is a great tool. but if I am a cyclist, based upon the claims (which are none), let alone the science, I would have to say, BFD. Tell me that getting one will benefit my performance in some way, so that I can justify the cost, beyond keeping me entertained and helping me to waste time, and I am all ears.

Edit: You seem bothered by the fact that I claim my product will help people to increase power without their needing to measure it. Yet, you seem to think that it is a better deal for people to be able to measure power without that helping them to increase it. Does your deal really sound like the better one?

 

[elapid]

I am not distorting anything. If all you want is an "objective" measure of where you are then, go ahead and spend that $1k. The fact that knowing that information has no effect on where you are or where you will be seems to be lost on you and everyone else. That is the point, there seems to be no point to this device if the subject is actually interested in something that will actually help them to improve beyond what can be done without it.

It is true that power meters objectively measure power and power is important to how fast one can go. That is important to researchers as they need objective measurements to test claims. But, the power meter manufacturers make no claim that it provides the cyclist any competitive benefit so, if I am a researcher, it is a great tool. If I am a cyclist, based upon the claims (which are none), let alone the science, I would have to say, BFD. Tell me that getting one will benefit my performance in some way, so that I can justify the cost, beyond keeping me entertained and helping me to waste time, and I am all ears.

You are distorting the argument and you continue to do so like the good little troll that you are. A PM is the only objective metric to measure improvements: where you are today and where you are in x time. There is nothing else which will provide an objective measurement of this improvement. A PM does NOT provide this improvement - and this is where you continually distort the argument because we all say it doesn't, but you want someone to say it does (other than yourself). It is a measuring tool. Period. All a PM will do is measure your power and by serially measuring power output you are measuring the effectiveness of your training regimen. There is no other metric that provides an objective measure of your performance. Furthermore, Atkinson et al showed that racing a TT with a PM does provide a competitive benefit. You do like to ignore the science that does not support your unproven theories, but it is there in print unlike the 40% improvement in power output you claim when using your cranks.

Why do you use an improvement in power output to advertise your cranks if you don't believe in it? Why don't you provide the objective power measurements to support your claims? You're obviously confused by PMs and the usefulness of measuring power output if you continue to denigrate it but continue to use it for false advertising.

 

[CoachFergie]

Seriously guys, don't feed the troll. Plenty of good things happening in the power meter equipment and analysis world without getting sidetracked by two people pushing their sad and commercial agendas.

On a semi related note I spent $200 on a set of scales that tell me body fat and haven't lost any weight or fat. For that money should I expect more weight loss!

 

[FrankDay]

You are distorting the argument and you continue to do so like the good little troll that you are. A PM is the only objective metric to measure improvements: where you are today and where you are in x time. There is nothing else which will provide an objective measurement of this improvement. A PM does NOT provide this improvement - and this is where you continually distort the argument because we all say it doesn't, but you want someone to say it does (other than yourself). It is a measuring tool. Period. All a PM will do is measure your power and by serially measuring power output you are measuring the effectiveness of your training regimen. There is no other metric that provides an objective measure of your performance. Furthermore, Atkinson et al showed that racing a TT with a PM does provide a competitive benefit. You do like to ignore the science that does not support your unproven theories, but it is there in print unlike the 40% improvement in power output you claim when using your cranks.

Why do you use an improvement in power output to advertise your cranks if you don't believe in it? Why don't you provide the objective power measurements to support your claims? You're obviously confused by PMs and the usefulness of measuring power output if you continue to denigrate it but continue to use it for false advertising.

Thanks for confirming my argument that a power meter provides zero competitive benefit to the user. My guess is that most of the people coming to this thread are doing so because they are interested in improving.

Why do I "advertise" a power improvement for my product? Because improving power is important for improving performance. We also give an expected speed improvement for those who do not measure power. I am simply telling those who might be interested what we expect how their purchase might benefit them, whether they measure their power or not. In addition, if we are wrong, if they do not see enough positive benefit to justify the cost (within 3 months), we offer them a money back guarantee. How many other pieces of training equipment make that offer? Certainly no power meter manufacturer that I know of.

I guess it comes down to: get a PM so you can get a number so you can talk with your friends vs get something without a number but it helps you to improve so you can brag to your friends.

 

[elapid]

Seriously guys, don't feed the troll. Plenty of good things happening in the power meter equipment and analysis world without getting sidetracked by two people pushing their sad and commercial agendas.

On a semi related note I spent $200 on a set of scales that tell me body fat and haven't lost any weight or fat. For that money should I expect more weight loss!

+1. Sorry - testing the waters and trying to give the benefit of the doubt, but the water is the same trollish temperature.

 

[FrankDay]

Plenty of good things happening in the power meter equipment and analysis world …

This is certainly the thread to bring them up.

 

[sittingbison]

Okey dokey gentle(wo)men, listen up.

Disingenuous comment, trolling, spamming etc are now a ZTP in this thread. And I mean ZTP, not Sir Dave's version

Capiche?

Cheers
Bison

 

[Berzin]

You seem bothered by the fact that I claim my product will help people to increase power without their needing to measure it. Yet, you seem to think that it is a better deal for people to be able to measure power without that helping them to increase it. Does your deal really sound like the better one?

I've measured the energy expended by all parties on this issue, and have come up with a painfully obvious conclusion-

Frank Day should have a rider set up a power measuring system with a pair of Power Cranks, have the rider train for three months and then gauge the results. The cost/benefit wold be enormous if Frank turns out to be correct.

Why is this so difficult? Why hasn't anyone done this, or have they already? I figure if they did, then the argument would be moot, but that doesn't seem to be the case.

 

[CoachFergie]

I've measured the energy expended by all parties on this issue, and have come up with a painfully obvious conclusion-

Frank Day should have a rider set up a power measuring system with a pair of Power Cranks, have the rider train for three months and then gauge the results. The cost/benefit wold be enormous if Frank turns out to be correct.

Why is this so difficult? Why hasn't anyone done this, or have they already? I figure if they did, then the argument would be moot, but that doesn't seem to be the case.

Check The Powercrank Thread. Plenty of research has been performed using wattage as the dependant variable. Well performed studies from 5-10 weeks which answer the question to any claimed benefit from training with uncoupled cranks.

Testing could easily be done with a Powertap wheel. In much the same way that oval chainrings were debunked when people started using a Powertap to measure power.

 

[CoachFergie]

Comparing Two Methods to Assess Power Output Associated With Peak Oxygen Uptake in Cyclists

Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research:
January 2014 - Volume 28 - Issue 1 - p 134–139
doi: 10.1519/JSC.0b013e3182987327

Abstract: Rønnestad, BR. Comparing two methods to assess power output associated with peak oxygen uptake in cyclists. J Strength Cond Res 28(1): 134–139, 2014—The aim of this study was to compare 2 methods that are frequently used to calculate the power output (MAP) that is associated with peak oxygen uptake (V[Combining Dot Above]O2peak) in the exercise mode of cycling. One method calculates the MAP by extrapolation of the individual V[Combining Dot Above]O2 to submaximal power output relationships to the measured V[Combining Dot Above]O2peak (MAPDaniels), whereas the other method uses the minimal power output that elicits V[Combining Dot Above]O2peak during a graded V[Combining Dot Above]O2peak test (MAPBillat). Thirteen male competitive cyclists (V[Combining Dot Above]O2peak = 66 ± 5 ml·kg−1·min−1) performed 3 test sessions; first to determine MAPDaniels and MAPBillat; second and third sessions were used to measure the time to exhaustion during continuous cycling exercise to exhaustion (Tmax), time to 95% of V[Combining Dot Above]O2peak, and time ≥ 95% of V[Combining Dot Above]O2peak with MAPDaniels and MAPBillat. Whether it was MAPDaniels or MAPBillat that was used on the second or third test session was randomized. There was no difference between mean MAPDaniels and mean MAPBillat (380 ± 38 vs. 383 ± 34 W, respectively) and their associated Tmax, time to 95% of V[Combining Dot Above]O2peak, and time ≥ 95% of V[Combining Dot Above]O2peak during a Tmax test. In conclusion, this study did not find any difference between MAPDaniels and MAPBillat. The practical application of this study is that the choice of a method to calculate the MAP can be determined by practicality and that findings from studies using these 2 methods are comparable.

 

[JayKosta]

Comparing Two Methods to Assess Power Output Associated With Peak Oxygen Uptake in Cyclists

Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research:
January 2014 - Volume 28 - Issue 1 - p 134–139
doi: 10.1519/JSC.0b013e3182987327

Abstract: Rønnestad, BR.
...

-------------------------
I don't understand what this article has to do with using a PM for training/racing purposes.
What about the article did you find interesting / useful?

Jay Kosta
Endwell NY USA

 

[CoachFergie]

-------------------------
I don't understand what this article has to do with using a PM for training/racing purposes.
What about the article did you find interesting / useful?

Jay Kosta
Endwell NY USA

Adds to the research on various proposed thresholds in cycling to help guide training and racing intensity.

Now we are developing better measures of finite work capacity above a functional threshold or a critical power such studies will help us to model this capacity better.

The better we can model this the better we can understand the various events. Sport scientists call the 1-5min range in sport "the Mystery Zone" (firstly by the late Gordon Slievert) so anything we can do to understand this zone will help those riders who compete in events like Kilo, Downhill, Pursuit, Teams Pursuit, Criterium where one spends a lot of time around or above the MAP.

 

[FrankDay]

I've measured the energy expended by all parties on this issue, and have come up with a painfully obvious conclusion-

Frank Day should have a rider set up a power measuring system with a pair of Power Cranks, have the rider train for three months and then gauge the results. The cost/benefit wold be enormous if Frank turns out to be correct.

I have done this. I did this before I started selling the product so I would have a basis for making a claim. But, of course, my efforts were not a scientific study nor would anyone believe I was unbaised. So, I know what the results were. Anyone who has used the product knows what it did for them. But, those who don't think such results are possible are correct in noticing that such results have yet to be scientifically proven

Why is this so difficult? Why hasn't anyone done this, or have they already? I figure if they did, then the argument would be moot, but that doesn't seem to be the case.

It is not possible for me to do this work and settle the argument (since I would be, obviously, biased) therefore it is up to others to do this independently. But, if you will go to the pedaling technique thread you will see there is plenty of work that has been done that suggests that changing technique can have an affect on both power and efficiency. If I were a researcher this is where I would think the low lying research fruit could be found now that the relatively easy availability to measure pedaling technique is affordable and soon to be widely available.

 

[FrankDay]

Yesterday on my ride I did think of a couple of competitive advantages that a plain old power meter (1st generation) can offer the cyclist.

1. Allows the athlete to do crank length testing where I think the differences are too subtle to be picked up in any other way.

2. Allows the athlete to do real world aerodynamic testing allowing equipment comparisons, saving the cost of trips to the wind tunnel.

The problem is the number of people who own power meters who use them for this purpose are miniscule. Most users get one so they can use power as a feedback device to monitor training and racing, a use for which there is no evidence of any benefit. The vast majority of owners, I am sure, purchased their PM with the expectation it would help them to get better. Why are the advocates of this device here so passionate about the device when they admit it doesn't do the work for the athlete but just measures their power? Why can't they be honest about what the device can and cannot do for the athlete thinking of getting one?

 

[FrankDay]

Adds to the research on various proposed thresholds in cycling to help guide training and racing intensity.

Now we are developing better measures of finite work capacity above a functional threshold or a critical power such studies will help us to model this capacity better.

The better we can model this the better we can understand the various events. Sport scientists call the 1-5min range in sport "the Mystery Zone" (firstly by the late Gordon Slievert) so anything we can do to understand this zone will help those riders who compete in events like Kilo, Downhill, Pursuit, Teams Pursuit, Criterium where one spends a lot of time around or above the MAP.

Your kidding, right? According to the authors

The practical application of this study is that the choice of a method to calculate the MAP can be determined by practicality and that findings from studies using these 2 methods are comparable.

This study had nothing to do with power meters or models or the mystery zone or anything else to do with power meters. It simply tells those interested in comparing research that two papers which use different methods of evaluating MAP could be considered as having used the same method. Takes a little bit of guesswork out of the evaluation process.

 

[CoachFergie]

-------------------------
I don't understand what this article has to do with using a PM for training/racing purposes.
What about the article did you find interesting / useful?

Jay Kosta
Endwell NY USA

Has a bit to do with using a PM for measurement and testing you would say?

 

[FrankDay]

Has a bit to do with using a PM for measurement and testing you would say?

No.

Extra letters to get past the count test

 

[Berzin]

Frank, I'm not a fan of power meters because after all these years they should be more technologically evolved and the prices more reasonable. But the high-end cycling community is always a sucker for high-priced gear that may or may not have benefits that reflect said retail price.

I hear so much crap from people when I bring up their limitations that discussions like this one always get bogged down in semantics and agendas.

What I don't understand is your attitude towards power meters as a tool. They aren't supposed to make anyone faster per se. They are like speedometers on a car,l a measuring device. They tell you the amount of energy you're expending per ride, per interval, etc.. What's wrong with that?

Which begs the question-what is the difference between gauging improvement via miles or kilometers per hour and watts? I wold think using both in unison would be a great help, and the truth is power meters are here to stay and are not going anywhere.

 

[CoachFergie]

Which begs the question-what is the difference between gauging improvement via miles or kilometers per hour and watts? I wold think using both in unison would be a great help, and the truth is power meters are here to stay and are not going anywhere.

Seriously?

Do you train on the same course every ride and over the same distance and at the same intensity?

And if you did are the weather conditions always exactly the same.

Unless you can honestly say yes to both the only way to truly know you are progressing is measuring with a power meter.