Training With Power - Evidence

Herbsman

Ok.

napoleond

Trev The Rev wrote:

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.

Why? There's no evidence to suggest any benefit?

Trev The Rev

NapoleonD wrote:

Trev The Rev wrote:

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.

Why? There's no evidence to suggest any benefit?

Well you can't really argue about theology without reading The Bible.

NewTTer

Trev The Rev wrote:

NapoleonD wrote:

Trev The Rev wrote:

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.

Why? There's no evidence to suggest any benefit?

Well you can't really argue about theology without reading The Bible.

Apart from the fact that if you truly believe a mythical being created the world in 7 days, and are then daft enough to base your life on this fairy story, then you have more problems that I originally thougth Trev

Trev The Rev

NewTTer wrote:

Trev The Rev wrote:

NapoleonD wrote:

Trev The Rev wrote:

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.

Why? There's no evidence to suggest any benefit?

Well you can't really argue about theology without reading The Bible.

Apart from the fact that if you truly believe a mythical being created the world in 7 days, and are then daft enough to base your life on this fairy story, then you have more problems that I originally thougth Trev

Reading something does not mean you believe it or agree with it.

Herbsman

Trev The Rev wrote:

NapoleonD wrote:

Trev The Rev wrote:

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.

Why? There's no evidence to suggest any benefit?

Well you can't really argue about theology without reading The Bible.

Hahahaha. Comparing a book on performance measurement and analysis to a book of fairy stories? What planet are you on?

Trev The Rev

Herbsman wrote:

Trev The Rev wrote:

NapoleonD wrote:

Trev The Rev wrote:

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.

Why? There's no evidence to suggest any benefit?

Well you can't really argue about theology without reading The Bible.

Hahahaha. Comparing a book on performance measurement and analysis to a book of fairy stories? What planet are you on?

To be fair to Coggan & Allen, their book is very much the training with power bible. However I doubt it will ever achieve the sales, readership or shelf life of the New Testament.

But we digress, the question is this,

Is there any evidence power meters enable you to train more effectively?

An over reliance on power output data may not be the best approach. You can train very effectively without a power meter.

I really would like to see some evidence. Much is said about training with power and data analysis and power meters are very expensive. Is it really too much to ask for some evidence?

ric/rstsport

i believe that hamish is doing the research you're interested in

Herbsman

Trev The Rev wrote:

....the question is this,

Is there any evidence power meters enable you to train more effectively?

An over reliance on power output data may not be the best approach. You can train very effectively without a power meter.

I really would like to see some evidence. Much is said about training with power and data analysis and power meters are very expensive. Is it really too much to ask for some evidence?

I refer you to my previous post, which you seem to have missed.

Herbsman wrote:

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...)

If you knew anything about scientific research you'd have worked that out yourself already...

Unless someone is trying to force you to buy a power meter, or you are trying to decide to buy one for yourself, I don't see what the problem is.

I know that I don't need one myself. However, I want one because I'd like to be able to pace my efforts better, record how much work I've been doing, and measure my improvements. I want hard data instead of guesswork. Having had a keen interest in science from school age, studying it at university and (very briefly) working in analytical chemistry, power measurement appeals to me. I don't need evidence or dogmatic belief that it will or won't work better than training by RPE - because that's not the point of it for me.

Setarkos

If it wasn't early (well, sort of) in the morning, I'd get a beer and crisps and keep reading

Edit: Oh god, now I'm actually having crisps for breakfast... :?

Trev The Rev

Ric/RSTSport wrote:

i believe that hamish is doing the research you're interested in

Who is Hamish?


Herbsman,

Read your last post.

I too am interested in power, the hard numbers, facts rather than guesswork; that is why I have trained using power. It is more the way some people, some coaches & sports scientists, but not all, in my opinion, get so bogged down in the numbers they lose sight of the whole picture and pay too little attention to other things that are important, that causes me to question whether, in the long run, this whole data analysis approach works best for most people.

Percy Vera

Trev, maybe you can tell us the answers to your questions, as you had a business last year selling Power Meters; or did you believe you were selling snake oil?


A Power Meter is a tool. You shouldn't become reliant on it (if you do what do you do if it breaks? stop training?); it won't make your training more effective, but it can help you to train more effectively if used correctly.

secretsqizz

Hamish
used to post useful stuff on here until certain people started to mess with his head.

GiantMike

Percy Vera wrote:

Trev, maybe you can tell us the answers to your questions, as you had a business last year selling Power Meters; or did you believe you were selling snake oil?

Is there any evidence that snake oil improves training?

GiantMike

Trev The Rev wrote:

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

Yes. based on a survey of one (me), I train harder and more consistently than I would if I was relying on HR or RPE. It has also provided me with a better understanding of what I have or haven't achieved and what I am capable of. I have demonstrated to myself that HR and RPE are poor guides to actual performance. It has allowed me to understand the difference between the quantity of training and the quality.

I can't speak for others, but I would imagine that there are some people who get a benefit from training with power, some that don't get any benefit, and some that are negatively affected. The same can be said about turbo trainers, HR monitors, clip-in pedals etc.

Here's a recent workout (Sufferfest's Hell Hath No Fury) and analysis. I couldn't have understood what happened without a powermeter and the ability to record my output. And doing the intervals on RPE or HR would just mean that I would have backed off on effort but still thought I had completed them.

Alex_Simmons/RST

Is there any evidence that carpenters do better work with a tape measure?

NewTTer

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

Is there any evidence that carpenters do better work with a tape measure?

Ah Alex, you are presuming Trev understands common sense!

Trev The Rev

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

Is there any evidence that carpenters do better work with a tape measure?

A good carpenter would not use inaccurate or unreliable tools.

NewTTer

Trev The Rev wrote:

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

Is there any evidence that carpenters do better work with a tape measure?

A good carpenter would not use inaccurate or unreliable tools.

So now you are finished questioning the validity of training with power meters question, and have moved on to, are power meters accurate?
In other words you have been exposed as the clown you really are and have decided to move the goal posts.

Go see your GP Trev, I mean you on your own provide enough material to keep a psychiatric convention busy for years. You really need some help, dont be embarrassed mental health issues dont hold the stigma they used to.

Herbsman

Trev The Rev wrote:

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

Is there any evidence that carpenters do better work with a tape measure?

A good carpenter would not use inaccurate or unreliable tools.

I'd have thought that a good carpenter would use the best tools that he could afford. I'm sure that would be preferable to using no tools at all.

ric/rstsport

Trev The Rev wrote:

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

Is there any evidence that carpenters do better work with a tape measure?

A good carpenter would not use inaccurate or unreliable tools.

A carpenters tools can suffer some of the same issues as a power meter. For e.g., what happens when the carpenter works in a hot environment and the tape measure expands? At least with a power meter it can be reset.

Alex_Simmons/RST

Well the question of the accuracy of power meters has been addressed in scientific study. I'll leave it to others to look for those published reports if they are that interested.

Power meters are not a method of training, they are a tool, so the question itself is based on a false premise.

It's entirely possible to train like crap while using a power meter, and to train well without one. For the latter, it will be a bit harder to validate as of course one does need an objective measure of performance, and modern power meters, used properly, are going to provide that information to a greater degree of accuracy than e.g. any timed cycling event will, even a hillclimb.

Keep in mind that for someone that trains regularly, the variation in performance (power) during full season is likely to be less than 10% and when fit, the incremental changes are less, far less than can be assessed with anything other than a measurement of power output.

As for confining the argument to the example of interval training alone, well if that's the narrow scope upon which such a broad conclusion is to be drawn, then that just demonstrates either or both a lack of understanding of how the body works, let alone the entirety of how one can use a power meter to more effectively manage a rider's training and improve performance.

Trev The Rev

I'm sure there is more out there than this.

http://www.computrainer.com.au/images/A ... Sports.pdf

Looks as though I have done a good job advertising power meters - again.

It really isn't easy arguing a weak case. A bit like being a barrister defending a blatantly guilty criminal. The best you can do is muddy the waters and hope the prosecution make a mistake.

I would only add that you should be able to measure improvements in performance using an indoor trainer provided you are very careful with the set up, (like Obree), but if you go to all that trouble why not use a power meter?

Herbsman

price

slunker

Is a power meter a tool as such?? I thought it was like a speedo and just provided data but most people don't call a speedo a tool.

jibberjim

Trev The Rev wrote:

I would only add that you should be able to measure improvements in performance using an indoor trainer provided you are very careful with the set up, (like Obree)

If you're doing that, then it _is_ a power meter you're using, just a pretty cumbersome and inaccurate one that is measuring indoor trainer performance, when most people care about their outdoor performance.

Trev The Rev

jibberjim wrote:

Trev The Rev wrote:

I would only add that you should be able to measure improvements in performance using an indoor trainer provided you are very careful with the set up, (like Obree)

If you're doing that, then it _is_ a power meter you're using, just a pretty cumbersome and inaccurate one that is measuring indoor trainer performance, when most people care about their outdoor performance.

Why remove the rest of my post? Which was, "but if you go to all that trouble why not use a power meter?"

I think you will find Obree's set up is very accurate though. He claims to within 0.5%. Which is more accurate than the 1.5% claimed by most power meters.

jibberjim

Trev The Rev wrote:

Why remove the rest of my post? Which was, "but if you go to all that trouble why not use a power meter?"

Because it was irrelevant - it just served to higlight even more that you do not understand that what you described IS a power meter, they are using one.

doyler78

Trev The Rev wrote:

jibberjim wrote:

Trev The Rev wrote:

I would only add that you should be able to measure improvements in performance using an indoor trainer provided you are very careful with the set up, (like Obree)

If you're doing that, then it _is_ a power meter you're using, just a pretty cumbersome and inaccurate one that is measuring indoor trainer performance, when most people care about their outdoor performance.

Why remove the rest of my post? Which was, "but if you go to all that trouble why not use a power meter?"

I think you will find Obree's set up is very accurate though. He claims to within 0.5%. Which is more accurate than the 1.5% claimed by most power meters.

How's he calibrating it though?

Trev The Rev

doyler78 wrote:

Trev The Rev wrote:

jibberjim wrote:

Trev The Rev wrote:

I would only add that you should be able to measure improvements in performance using an indoor trainer provided you are very careful with the set up, (like Obree)

If you're doing that, then it _is_ a power meter you're using, just a pretty cumbersome and inaccurate one that is measuring indoor trainer performance, when most people care about their outdoor performance.

Why remove the rest of my post? Which was, "but if you go to all that trouble why not use a power meter?"

I think you will find Obree's set up is very accurate though. He claims to within 0.5%. Which is more accurate than the 1.5% claimed by most power meters.

How's he calibrating it though?

From memory, I read his book a few months ago, he uses one with magnetic resistance, he removes anything which might interfere with the resistance in any way and ensures tyre pressure and any equipment is always the same, temperature etc etc. I assume he is measuring distance not power and using speed as on bike feed back. Obree sees no point in measuring power out on the road and refers to power data as interesting but useless.

His book is worth reading although he is at odds with most experts in many areas.