Training With Power - Evidence

Trev The Rev

Is there any evidence that training with a power meter works better than training without one?

This study would suggest a power meter does not make intervals more effective.

http://www.jssm.org/vol10/n3/12/v10n3-12text.php
CONCLUSION
Proponents of PM training (Allen and Coggan, 2006) often suggest that using a PM will result in a different type of training. Future research may be needed to operationalize these claims and evaluate them in controlled trials. At present, there is substantial support for interval training for endurance athletes and no evidence for the superiority of any single type of device in the implementation of interval training. Until additional studies are conducted to address the potential benefits of new types of training based on PM feedback, there remains no empirical evidence for the superiority of PM-based training.

Herbsman

Oh my life

Herbsman

You obviously missed the bit that says their training was done at LT and that performance was measured for 20km TT time. Can you not see the glaringly obvious flaws in the methodology?

Trev The Rev

Herbsman wrote:

You obviously missed the bit that says their training was done at LT and that performance was measured for 20km TT time. Can you not see the glaringly obvious flaws in the methodology?

I posted the study, I'm not commenting on it. If you want to question the people who did the study I'm sure they will be interested to hear from you.

If there is any evidence that training with power improves performance better than training without a power meter please post it.

Herbsman

Why post it if you're not willing to discuss it? Your ignorance is unbelievable

Trev The Rev

Herbsman wrote:

Why post it if you're not willing to discuss it? Your ignorance is unbelievable

So you don't have any evidence then? Don't you agree with their conclusions?

amaferanga

Trev's right, perceived exertion monitors (PERMS) are the future.....

Herbsman

Trev The Rev wrote:

Herbsman wrote:

Why post it if you're not willing to discuss it? Your ignorance is unbelievable

So you don't have any evidence then? Don't you agree with their conclusions?

What claims have I made that require corroboration with evidence?

jibberjim

They used a power meter to measure the training, they used a power meter to measure the success of the training - and then conclude that power meters aren't any use? How do they arrive at the conclusion without a power meter being essential?

amaferanga

Trev The Rev wrote:

Herbsman wrote:

Why post it if you're not willing to discuss it? Your ignorance is unbelievable

So you don't have any evidence then? Don't you agree with their conclusions?

No and no.

fearby

Advocates of training with power always point out that the power meter does not make you fitter. It is one of several ways of monitoring your exertion so you can focus on specific aspects of your training needs. Heart rate and perceived exertion tell the same info but not as accurately.

mamba80

You can prove or otherwise any theory on the 'net.

Ime a highly motivated cyclist without a PM can out perform a less motivated one with a PM but what does that prove? its obvious
plenty of guys do really well with a PM and plenty do well without one.
Its just a tool and like all tools its down to the user.

some folk just like to argue

Herbsman

Trev you obviously fail to see the point of power meters. A power meter might not improve the effectiveness of my training. However it will allow me to objectively measure how hard and fast I can currently pedal, and it will allow me to measure any improvements as such (if any) over time. Neither heart rate nor PE can do this. Why is that so hard for you to fathom?

Again - why post a link to a study if you're not willing to discuss it?

Finding the evidence that you are looking for would require much more than a flawed 5-week study with a sample size of only 20 athletes training only at lactate threshold intensity and then only measuring 20km TT performance. It would require more time, more athletes, more types of training and more controlled variables, and more measures of changes in performance (30s, 1min, 5min, 20min etc). And it's not power meters alone that make training more effective - it's the athlete or coaches ability to interpret the power data and adjust the training as necessary. How can you control that variable in a study? This is why you are very unlikely to find a decent scientific study that shows power meters to be superior to HR monitors. It would cost too much, it would take a long time and it would probably be too complicated and difficult to control.

It's not as if there is a big power meter company with millions of pounds to spend on funding such studies in the way that Gatorade funds studies into the benefits of sports drinks (the results of which, strangely, always seem to be in their favour...)

alihisgreat

amaferanga wrote:

Trev's right, perceived exertion monitors (PERMS) are the future.....

My granny had a perm.

Trev The Rev

Herbsman wrote:

Trev you obviously fail to see the point of power meters. A power meter might not improve the effectiveness of my training. However it will allow me to objectively measure how hard and fast I can currently pedal, and it will allow me to measure any improvements as such (if any) over time. Neither heart rate nor PE can do this. Why is that so hard for you to fathom?

If a power meter does not improve the effectiveness of your training what is the point of it?

There are other ways of measuring improvements.

Often the improvements are very slight, a power meter is only accurate to plus or minus 1% or 2%, (even when calibrated correctly and when actually working), which is not accurate enough to measure small subtle improvements. Just 1% of a 25 mile time trial is 440 yards or 36 seconds over an hour. Power meters are not really accurate enough to pick up small improvements.

vorsprung

Before power meters there were heart rate monitors

Training regimes for heart rate monitors followed the same kind of pattern as for power meters ie

[*] Figure out a "magic level of effort" like the FTP, HRMax, LT etc etc
[*] Devise a set of intervals based on that level. Often these involve training at a "sweet spot" where recovery and the "overload" from the training are optimally balanced
[*] Retest the "magic level of effort" to see if progress has been made

As I understand it power meters are really good at pinpointing this "magic level" and so are a very useful thing if you train in this way. For instance, to compare with a heart rate monitor: on very short intervals there is not time for the heart rate to stabilize but the power meter is accurate on short intervals.

And most people do train in this way, as there is load of evidence for intervals working

The power meter works better at helping to give an exact amount of training for the interval. This means the user can train harder, closer to the limit of what is possible, without risk of overtraining. Given that for any human being the time to train, the hours in a day are limited, if the quality of training is better there is a benefit

Obviously an individual could train intuitively to the same levels as a power meter might suggest and so gain the same benefits. But that's like saying a circle can be drawn freehand as well as by using a compass

markwb79

I only scan a few of the posts, often I have people commenting on 'trolls'. Never really seen one until this moment, cheers for dispelling the myth Trev

amaferanga

Trev The Rev wrote:

If a power meter does not improve the effectiveness of your training what is the point of it?

There are other ways of measuring improvements.

Often the improvements are very slight, a power meter is only accurate to plus or minus 1% or 2%, (even when calibrated correctly and when actually working), which is not accurate enough to measure small subtle improvements. Just 1% of a 25 mile time trial is 440 yards or 36 seconds over an hour. Power meters are not really accurate enough to pick up small improvements.

I must be missing something here. What IS there that will measure these "small subtle improvement"? Is this a feature of your PERM?

The biggest mystery to me is why people (myself included) even bother trying to debate anything with you.

Herbsman

Trev The Rev wrote:

Herbsman wrote:

Trev you obviously fail to see the point of power meters. A power meter might not improve the effectiveness of my training. However it will allow me to objectively measure how hard and fast I can currently pedal, and it will allow me to measure any improvements as such (if any) over time. Neither heart rate nor PE can do this. Why is that so hard for you to fathom?

If a power meter does not improve the effectiveness of your training what is the point of it?

Have you tried reading the third sentence of the post you quoted?

The bit that says "However it will allow me to objectively measure how hard and fast I can currently pedal, and it will allow me to measure any improvements as such (if any) over time"

You really are unbelievable

Herbsman

Trev The Rev wrote:

There are other ways of measuring improvements.

Often the improvements are very slight, a power meter is only accurate to plus or minus 1% or 2%, (even when calibrated correctly and when actually working), which is not accurate enough to measure small subtle improvements. Just 1% of a 25 mile time trial is 440 yards or 36 seconds over an hour. Power meters are not really accurate enough to pick up small improvements.

Not everyone is able to do 25 mile time trials regularly. Especially not on the same course with exactly the same conditions (wind speed, wind direction, temperature). +/- 2% is a much smaller margin of error than the difference in time caused by weather conditions.

Now I already knew you were trolling from your first post, I'm only arguing with you because I'm off work and I'm bored, and trying to put off the laborious task of washing my bike, doing the weekly checks on my car, and tidying up the house. So please continue with your trollery, it is actually benefiting me!

NewTTer

Trev The Rev wrote:

Herbsman wrote:

Trev you obviously fail to see the point of power meters. A power meter might not improve the effectiveness of my training. However it will allow me to objectively measure how hard and fast I can currently pedal, and it will allow me to measure any improvements as such (if any) over time. Neither heart rate nor PE can do this. Why is that so hard for you to fathom?

If a power meter does not improve the effectiveness of your training what is the point of it?

There are other ways of measuring improvements.

Often the improvements are very slight, a power meter is only accurate to plus or minus 1% or 2%, (even when calibrated correctly and when actually working), which is not accurate enough to measure small subtle improvements. Just 1% of a 25 mile time trial is 440 yards or 36 seconds over an hour. Power meters are not really accurate enough to pick up small improvements.

Which are?
You really do need to seek urgent help Trev, you are displaying sociopathic tendancies with alarming frequency, make an appointment with your GP, not your mate Coggan, and get some help

Trev The Rev

Herbsman wrote:

Trev The Rev wrote:

There are other ways of measuring improvements.

Often the improvements are very slight, a power meter is only accurate to plus or minus 1% or 2%, (even when calibrated correctly and when actually working), which is not accurate enough to measure small subtle improvements. Just 1% of a 25 mile time trial is 440 yards or 36 seconds over an hour. Power meters are not really accurate enough to pick up small improvements.

Not everyone is able to do 25 mile time trials regularly. Especially not on the same course with exactly the same conditions (wind speed, wind direction, temperature). +/- 2% is a much smaller margin of error than the difference in time caused by weather conditions.

Now I already knew you were trolling from your first post, I'm only arguing with you because I'm off work and I'm bored, and trying to put off the laborious task of washing my bike, doing the weekly checks on my car, and tidying up the house. So please continue with your trollery, it is actually benefiting me!

I was not advocating doing time trials to measure improvements in fitness or performance. The passing traffic alone makes the time a poor measure. I was merely pointing out the accuracy of a power meter. A margin of error of 440 yards or 36 seconds is too big a margin for meaningful data.

slunker

I use race results and times at my local TT to see if I'm improving, I don't need a Pm to tell me that, but I can see how a PM would motivate people in their training watching there figures go up and trying to improve on them. I'm a bit old school and prefer to listen to my body and that has been a fairly good indicator of how I'm going.

Herbsman

Trev The Rev wrote:

I was not advocating doing time trials to measure improvements in fitness or performance. The passing traffic alone makes the time a poor measure. I was merely pointing out the accuracy of a power meter. A margin of error of 440 yards or 36 seconds is too big a margin for meaningful data.

So what's a more accurate way of measuring performance then?

If I want to know how hard and fast I can pedal for five minutes (bearing in mind there are no hills around here that take longer than 90 seconds to climb) how do I measure that to within 2% accuracy?

Trev The Rev

Herbsman wrote:

Trev The Rev wrote:

I was not advocating doing time trials to measure improvements in fitness or performance. The passing traffic alone makes the time a poor measure. I was merely pointing out the accuracy of a power meter. A margin of error of 440 yards or 36 seconds is too big a margin for meaningful data.

So what's a more accurate way of measuring performance then?

If I want to know how hard and fast I can pedal for five minutes (bearing in mind there are no hills around here that take longer than 90 seconds to climb) how do I measure that to within 2% accuracy?

Outdoors a power meter would measure power to within 2% accuracy if calibrated correctly. But would measuring it make the 5 minute effort more effective?

NewTTer

Trev The Rev wrote:

Herbsman wrote:

Trev The Rev wrote:

I was not advocating doing time trials to measure improvements in fitness or performance. The passing traffic alone makes the time a poor measure. I was merely pointing out the accuracy of a power meter. A margin of error of 440 yards or 36 seconds is too big a margin for meaningful data.

So what's a more accurate way of measuring performance then?

If I want to know how hard and fast I can pedal for five minutes (bearing in mind there are no hills around here that take longer than 90 seconds to climb) how do I measure that to within 2% accuracy?

Outdoors a power meter would measure power to within 2% accuracy if calibrated correctly. But would measuring it make the 5 minute effort more effective?

You really are very stupid Trev, of course measuring it wont have any direct effect on its effectiveness. Howver using the data that is collected could. A power meter itself is much like you a DUMB OBJECT, and on its own will make no difference to ouput, it merely collects the data that will allow, if required or desired, others or the user to monitor for improvement, and put in place corrective actions to assist that improvement

ric/rstsport

Gawd, i have deja vu all over again :-(.

Herbsman

Trev The Rev wrote:

Herbsman wrote:

Trev The Rev wrote:

I was not advocating doing time trials to measure improvements in fitness or performance. The passing traffic alone makes the time a poor measure. I was merely pointing out the accuracy of a power meter. A margin of error of 440 yards or 36 seconds is too big a margin for meaningful data.

So what's a more accurate way of measuring performance then?

If I want to know how hard and fast I can pedal for five minutes (bearing in mind there are no hills around here that take longer than 90 seconds to climb) how do I measure that to within 2% accuracy?

Outdoors a power meter would measure power to within 2% accuracy if calibrated correctly. But would measuring it make the 5 minute effort more effective?

Once a five minute test has been taken, the power meter can be used to pace future five minute efforts. Thus helping the rider to ride at the 'correct' intensity, i.e. hard enough to stimulate adaptations but not so hard that they can't finish the interval without their power dropping significantly.

Trev The Rev

I see you have been reading the works of Dr Andrew Coggan.

Herbsman

No, I haven't actually. Should I have?

Trev The Rev

Herbsman wrote:

No, I haven't actually. Should I have?

Yes you should read his work if you want to get the most out of training with power I would go as far as to say it is a must.