Power, is it all that?
Comments
-
Team Banana Spokesman wrote:there is no doubt that if merckx had a PM and all the knowledge of how to use it that he could have got to his peak quicker through better training.
I would ask what proof you have of this? i.e. studies of Eddy, etc. To simply say it's true isn't good enough, to be honest. Do you have any facts and or figures on this??? :? :?0 -
Team Banana Spokesman wrote:no.
AFAIK most teams have no PM sponsor and they buy them in themselves. there are some riders who do not use them or only use them in training occasionally.
Actually most teams do have Powermeter sponsors0 -
redddraggon wrote:Dennis, it is a scientific fact that Power is the best method training assuming you know what you are doing or you have a coach that does. That's not to say other stuff won't work, it just won't be as efficient.
As long as I'm asking for proof(see previous post) show me the "scientific facts" that prove training with a power meter is better than ever other training method. Having a bunch of people say it's better is not proof. I'm pretty sure I could find more than a few people who say power meters are just expensive fluff, but that's not proof either.0 -
dennisn wrote:redddraggon wrote:Dennis, it is a scientific fact that Power is the best method training assuming you know what you are doing or you have a coach that does. That's not to say other stuff won't work, it just won't be as efficient.
As long as I'm asking for proof(see previous post) show me the "scientific facts" that prove training with a power meter is better than ever other training method. Having a bunch of people say it's better is not proof. I'm pretty sure I could find more than a few people who say power meters are just expensive fluff, but that's not proof either.
Why don't you prove that there's an alternative to training with power that is better? After all, at your age I'm sure you've got plenty of time on your hands
More problems but still living....0 -
dennisn wrote:redddraggon wrote:Dennis, it is a scientific fact that Power is the best method training assuming you know what you are doing or you have a coach that does. That's not to say other stuff won't work, it just won't be as efficient.
As long as I'm asking for proof(see previous post) show me the "scientific facts" that prove training with a power meter is better than ever other training method. Having a bunch of people say it's better is not proof. I'm pretty sure I could find more than a few people who say power meters are just expensive fluff, but that's not proof either.
There's plenty of stuff out there, which is not opinion based. Personally I don't have a powermeter nor feel I'm missing out by not having one. It's just an extra tool to maximise training efficiency, I just feel that it's probably not worth getting a powermeter unless you have the other parts of the training "jigsaw", like commitment and drive.0 -
redddraggon wrote:dennisn wrote:redddraggon wrote:Dennis, it is a scientific fact that Power is the best method training assuming you know what you are doing or you have a coach that does. That's not to say other stuff won't work, it just won't be as efficient.
As long as I'm asking for proof(see previous post) show me the "scientific facts" that prove training with a power meter is better than ever other training method. Having a bunch of people say it's better is not proof. I'm pretty sure I could find more than a few people who say power meters are just expensive fluff, but that's not proof either.
There's plenty of stuff out there, which is not opinion based. Personally I don't have a powermeter nor feel I'm missing out by not having one. It's just an extra tool to maximise training efficiency, I just feel that it's probably not worth getting a powermeter unless you have the other parts of the training "jigsaw", like commitment and drive.
I think that's a great point. It is a big jigsaw, for some a power meter will be a part of that jigsaw for others it wont or there will be other important pieces needed more0 -
Honestly - who gives a fark?!
It's a pissing contest that no one is going to win.
You either have embraced training with power (and are probably a better rider for it) or no amount of 'proof' is going to convince you that it is the way forward.
You won't find many people who actually have USED a PM (and done it correctly) that would give it up for any reason. You'll find lots of people that DIDN'T use it correctly that will.
Treat it as a toy and that's all it ever will be. Treat it as a TOOL, and you'll benefit from it.
Or don't.0 -
back in the day the training was more of a guessing game. more science has helped athletes with training since.
PMs allow you to get the gains you want in the time you have, instead of riding round blindly in the hope you will get the same gains.
therefore if you can reduce the time it tkes to get a specific gain from training, you can train less for the same gains or get more gains per unit of time.0 -
Maybe some one can explain why they are so expensive ?
They are only a couple of strain gauges in a hub or crank and a little computer.
By the way reddraggon why pay £6k for the nano voltmeter meter, they must have gone up in cost since I ued them years ago Could get a few PM's for that cost 0 -
oldwelshman wrote:By the way reddraggon why pay £6k for the nano voltmeter meter, they must have gone up in cost since I ued them years ago Could get a few PM's for that cost
Nanovoltmeter only was about £2,800, it was the current source that added the extra money.0 -
amaferanga wrote:dennisn wrote:redddraggon wrote:Dennis, it is a scientific fact that Power is the best method training assuming you know what you are doing or you have a coach that does. That's not to say other stuff won't work, it just won't be as efficient.
As long as I'm asking for proof(see previous post) show me the "scientific facts" that prove training with a power meter is better than ever other training method. Having a bunch of people say it's better is not proof. I'm pretty sure I could find more than a few people who say power meters are just expensive fluff, but that's not proof either.
Why don't you prove that there's an alternative to training with power that is better? After all, at your age I'm sure you've got plenty of time on your hands
You've got me wrong. I never said PM's work, or don't work, or even whether they might work. I'm simply asking people to prove what they say about them. It bothers me when I hear people saying that this or that is a fact, yet can not offer any writtings, studies, and or peer reviewed articles to back up these statements. H*ll, PM's just might be the best thing since sliced bread, but show me the facts and figures that prove it. Just because someone makes something and makes claims for it doesn't mean it does what it is claimed to do. So you'll have to pardon me if I dispute the FACT that Eddy M. would have been better, earlier, if he had a power meter. That's pure speculation, like a lot of things.0 -
Similarly, there's no way to prove he would have been better riding a carbon frame, using clipless pedals, using STI shifting, deep section wheels, wearing a skinsuit, a TT bike, aero bars, using energy drinks/gels, etc.
It's not fact - it's just a very strong hypothesis - that is unprovable but highly likely nonetheless.0 -
Pokerface wrote:Similarly, there's no way to prove he would have been better riding a carbon frame, using clipless pedals, using STI shifting, deep section wheels, wearing a skinsuit, a TT bike, aero bars, using energy drinks/gels, etc.
It's not fact - it's just a very strong hypothesis - that is unprovable but highly likely nonetheless. now this opens up other issues
I for one do not believe all the hype about all of the above improvong performance that hugey while I do agree they make things feel better. Clipless and toe clips over flat pedals I agree.
If tghere are such huge improvements then why are most ( I say most) of the TT times for open events and more so club events with respect to TT's not any better than 25 yers ago?
Forget the pros and the like of Wiggo and Fabio.
I remember the likes og Ian Cammish, John Pritchard and others posting short 20 minute 10's.
For good club riders and racing guys, loads used to do 22 and 23 minute 10's and some 21 minute tens.
I even did a short 22 on a 6 speed raliegh 25 years ago and that was on the local ajax course
If the changes in technology and use pf PM's were that inflential I would be expecting all average riders to be doing sub 22 minutes surely? Or does it mean that the ability of riders these days is lower than all those years ago ?
The only one I can positively quantify as improving performance is the use of low bars compared to drops as I tried both for track pursuit and times improved using low bars.
Surprisingly using tri spoke and rear disk made no improvement in times in shorter events than deep section or spoked wheels but the ride definately felt smoother and I was able to hold the lines much better.0 -
I think there's a tendency to look at the past with rose tinted spectacles.
As an example, I've had in my possession all of our district trophies with the times on them. I've also had most of my (old) clubs trophies, again I've seen the times the top riders were doing back in the day and I can tell you things/times have moved on very significnatly. Technology of the bikes has to have been the major mover in this big improvement.
I'll give you another example, a sub hour 25 would be a goal, a standard a few years back. Now if you're not doing a 57 you aint even getting in some event (there's 120 riders faster than you.)
and Welsh' if you go on the tt forum you'll find that there are a lot of people doing sub 20's these days. Again 22/23 doesn't get you in the game.0 -
Do you have the times of Stuart Coles and John Evans? They used to do reasonable times but both were better road riders ?chrisw12 wrote:I think there's a tendency to look at the past with rose tinted spectacles.
As an example, I've had in my possession all of our district trophies with the times on them. I've also had most of my (old) clubs trophies, again I've seen the times the top riders were doing back in the day and I can tell you things/times have moved on very significnatly. Technology of the bikes has to have been the major mover in this big improvement.
I'll give you another example, a sub hour 25 would be a goal, a standard a few years back. Now if you're not doing a 57 you aint even getting in some event (there's 120 riders faster than you.)
and Welsh' if you go on the tt forum you'll find that there are a lot of people doing sub 20's these days. Again 22/23 doesn't get you in the game.
I am only commenting on the times I see in the cycling magazine compared to the old ones.
I have also compared the times when some clubs run a clubman TT where you have to use a road bike, not discs, only over certain number of spokes etc and not a huge difference in times, in fact I saw two that did better 0 -
Please don't confuse training methods with the tools used to track/monitor those methods.
You can still train like a goose with a power meter on your bike. And it's definitely possible to train well without one.
To argue that having a power meter implies a training method is fallacious.
Power meters do something really well, and that's measure how hard you are riding every second you are on the bike*. What you do with that information is where the fun begins. If you know what to do with this information, then it can really help you nail your training. It can also significantly shorten the learning curve on the path to good training.
There is also a host of other valuable performance analysis possible with power meters that is not possible without one.
* and after consistency, getting the intensity of effort right is the next most important element of training. The fitter you become, the smaller the incremental changes in fitness, such that they are only really detectable with an accurate PM (and hence the only way of really knowing if what training you are doing is having the desired effect).0 -
Well go and make some and see how you go selling them for less.oldwelshman wrote:Maybe some one can explain why they are so expensive ?
They are only a couple of strain gauges in a hub or crank and a little computer. 0 -
I've just started using one in training and can echo what Alex says. It doesn't give you an engine, but it does allow you to objectively assess how you're doing. It's especially useful when you are looking for small improvements.
Couple of interesting data points:
I do a climb near home that averages 7.4% for 2.2km. A couple of weeks ago I did 7'40 up it at an average of 366W. A week later I did it in 7'15 - a big improvement - but only at 367W.
Why? Because the wind was more favourable the second time. Big difference, even on a steepish climb. I would normally not expect it to make that much of a difference.
I also do a 39km hilly course as sweet spot training. Last week: 1:04:40 @ 289W/304W normalised. This week, 1:03:36 @ 290W/305W normalised (before tacking another 20min onto this at the same power)
Both rides had the same average heart rate and I was wearing similar kit. The difference this time: last week it was 0-2 degrees, this week it was more like 8-9 degrees.
I've also done <1:01 on that course in perfect conditions without at power meter, but I know I'm also fitter now in power terms than I was then because I have race data to compare.
A 1W improvement doesn't sound like much. It's not even within the measurement error of the power meter. But if that translates into 4W / month, that's a bigger deal.Jeff Jones
Product manager, Sports0 -
You could equally argue that the less naturally gifted amongst us have potentially the most to gain by using a PM to improve their training. A 10% improvement in power would probably be enough to move up a category at the lower end. Can you justify £1000 to do that? Well that is of course up to you. I have, at the expense of riding a bling bike (still on an alu frame with 2nd hand wheels).Horta wrote:But with power meters costing the same as a bike (well the kind of bike I could afford) I presume there aren't that many people that actually have them. So for "normal" riders, 4th through 2nd cats, sportivers and testers what do we do?
The best riders would still be merely good even if their training was all over the place.0 -
Interesting thread.
Have to say that I can understand the benefits of a power meter but why does this give far superior benefit over a heart rate monitor, cadence and resistance ?
If you can relate a constant power output with a corresponding heart rate/resistance/cadence and train consistently with these parameters then how will a power meter give you such an advantage ?
This is a genuine question as I don't quite understand. I read Pete Reade's Black Book and whilst it mentions power measurement is largely based on HR and progressive training using this as a tool. Surely if you are able to apply sustained power over time (at any given level) this will relate to a consistent HR. Thus is it not possible to work back ?0 -
I personally think a power meter is of greatest benefit to amateur racers with very limited time to train.0
-
Having come into serious cycling, after doing a few years triathlon where most training at that time was heart rate based, I've noticed my biggest gains come since using a power meter, first on the Tacx flow and more recently a powertap.
Not being a sports scientist, heart rate training seemed less consistent, so basically, from my point of view, and experiences I agree with Nap, and would recommend the use of a power meter, and as they can be rented if try before you buy!0 -
The relationship between power & HR is not as strong as you might think, such that you could not effectively do what you suggest.Escargot wrote:Surely if you are able to apply sustained power over time (at any given level) this will relate to a consistent HR. Thus is it not possible to work back ?
This is especially so when riding outdoors, whenever an effort is variable, whenever conditions vary and as the intensity level rises (let alone other non-riding factors that might influence HR responses).
If you do not have a power meter, then HR can play a somewhat useful role in providing information on effort level. One just needs to be informed about its limitations.
If you have a power meter though, then having HR info is at best redundant.
Cadence is meaningless as a measure of intensity. You also need to know how much force you are applying to the pedals (IOW, knowing cadence without simultaneous knowledge of forces, torque or power is of no practical training benefit).0 -
I personally think the Performance Manager Chart found in the WKO+ software is probably the single most useful aspect of training with power - it is effectively a graphical summary of how good (or not!) your training has been (especially over the past 3 months) and allows the self-coached rider to plan weekly training loads in order to hit peak form at the right time for target events.Escargot wrote:Have to say that I can understand the benefits of a power meter but why does this give far superior benefit over a heart rate monitor, cadence and resistance?
Overkill for many perhaps, but now I've really got to grips with it I have found it really useful for setting weekly and longer-terms training targets rather than training like a headless chicken (which I tried last year and found to be "sub-optimal" to say the least). 0 -
Jeff Jones wrote:I do a climb near home that averages 7.4% for 2.2km. A couple of weeks ago I did 7'40 up it at an average of 366W. A week later I did it in 7'15 - a big improvement - but only at 367W.
Why? Because the wind was more favourable the second time. Big difference, even on a steepish climb. I would normally not expect it to make that much of a difference.
I also do a 39km hilly course as sweet spot training. Last week: 1:04:40 @ 289W/304W normalised. This week, 1:03:36 @ 290W/305W normalised (before tacking another 20min onto this at the same power)
Both rides had the same average heart rate and I was wearing similar kit. The difference this time: last week it was 0-2 degrees, this week it was more like 8-9 degrees.
Jeff - I'm fairly agnostic on powermeters but to be fair, surely you don't need one to establish which way the wind is blowing, or if the temperature is a few degrees warmer...???
I can just look at the weather forecast for that....0 -
I'd rather spend the money on a coach and decent training plan. (if i had it)0
-
softlad wrote:Jeff Jones wrote:I do a climb near home that averages 7.4% for 2.2km. A couple of weeks ago I did 7'40 up it at an average of 366W. A week later I did it in 7'15 - a big improvement - but only at 367W.
Why? Because the wind was more favourable the second time. Big difference, even on a steepish climb. I would normally not expect it to make that much of a difference.
I also do a 39km hilly course as sweet spot training. Last week: 1:04:40 @ 289W/304W normalised. This week, 1:03:36 @ 290W/305W normalised (before tacking another 20min onto this at the same power)
Both rides had the same average heart rate and I was wearing similar kit. The difference this time: last week it was 0-2 degrees, this week it was more like 8-9 degrees.
Jeff - I'm fairly agnostic on powermeters but to be fair, surely you don't need one to establish which way the wind is blowing, or if the temperature is a few degrees warmer...???
I can just look at the weather forecast for that....
It's not always easy, even on a short-ish climb, let alone a long ride, to know exactly what the wind is doing at any particular instant. The point I think Jeff is making is that it takes the uncertainty out of analysing your performance. Without the powermeter, you'd be saying "Well, I went x seconds quicker/slower, but it was windy/hot/cold, maybe that had an effect". The PM strips away the weather conditions and tells you *your* condition.Le Blaireau (1)0 -
No you don't need one for that at all - it's just a more precise way of measuring your performance than gut feeling. Had I just gone on the forecast, my times would have led me to believe that I was fitter (or less fit) than I thought. That could lead to suboptimal training, which is what the power meter is meant to help you avoid.softlad wrote:Jeff - I'm fairly agnostic on powermeters but to be fair, surely you don't need one to establish which way the wind is blowing, or if the temperature is a few degrees warmer...???
I can just look at the weather forecast for that....
It's still early days for me using it regularly in training so I don't know how useful this precision is - I need a good six months on it I think.
My winter program was done without a power meter but based on an intensity/stress approach using heart rate and training session type. It was a real pain to work out (I did have power from past races and some training sessions) but the TSS/CTL/ATL scores I'm getting now are pretty close to what I was estimating over winter. Also, it was the most time efficient training plan that I've ever come up with, and it actually worked.Jeff Jones
Product manager, Sports0 -
DaveyL wrote:Without the powermeter, you'd be saying "Well, I went x seconds quicker/slower, but it was windy/hot/cold, maybe that had an effect". The PM strips away the weather conditions and tells you *your* condition.
ok, but the point I'm making is that cycling is affected by an infinite number of variables - some within your control (like a good night's sleep, or a decent meal) and others outside of your control (weather, road conditions, etc) all of which can have a positive/negative impact on your ride.
The data that Jeff was quoting showed fairly consistent power outputs, with the only variables being outside of his control. I'd be pretty annoyed if all a powermeter told me was that the weather makes a difference to riding....
(edit: written/posted before I read Jeff's reply above)0 -
So would I! I should have mentioned that I've been sick for the last few weeks so didn't expect any massive improvements. So knocking 25sec off my climbing time would have given me a false sense of how well I was going, before being brought back to earth in a race, which can be tough mentally.softlad wrote:The data that Jeff was quoting showed fairly consistent power outputs, with the only variables being outside of his control. I'd be pretty annoyed if all a powermeter told me was that the weather makes a difference to riding....
One of my goals this year is to improve my 1hr power by ~10W on my best power from last year, and keep it at that level. When you break it down, that's not very many watts per week, hence my desire to have something more precise to measure gains with.Jeff Jones
Product manager, Sports0
