Training With Power - Evidence

Team4Luke

power is of no use whatsover unless also measured against distance completed using time/speed - fact. Who cares how much power is outputted unless your seeing your training times actually coming down regulary in real time.
My racing mate trained with power for one year, he has now junked it because he massively undertrained.
Power is fine for measuring short efforts maybe upto 20mins as you can know pretty much exactly where to maintain the watts power especially setting off where you can ensure you don't overdo it, with HR you might set off bit too hard and have to wait for HR to catch up. Having said that I don't believe in any training less than 20mins duration for TT nor short intervals, you won't make big time gains from these no matter what all the research papers produce, you will from training at much longer around an hour typically for short distance TT, once riding beyond 20mins any power would follow a pretty much stable HR while travelling so HR is fine for long efforts just as good as power, so if your doing 300watts for an hour you will likely be showing a similar HR for that time anyway, might be around 170bpm say so you can just follow that. The argument would be drift, well HR actually drifts down not up as you get tired and it becomes harder to stay at the HR thus you actually push yourself harder to stay there becoming a very effective session. Similary your legs will tire riding at watts and the same will happen although the power users like to perpetuate a myth that you can just ride and complete any session at any power as though your legs or cardio or HR are not affected and you can just do it.
If you ride with power fine just ensure you monitor everything else.

ric/rstsport

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.

it's unlikely that Obree's set up is accurate to within 0.5%, because it's perfectly normal for the roller-tyre interface to warm up as you ride (i've measured drift for over 2 hrs continuous riding with mine).

Additionally, the 1.5% claimed by most power meter companies doesn't mean they expect their meter to vary by +/- 1.5% (i.e., 3%) on a continuous basis, but they expect their meter to be (e.g.) within 1.5% of an absolute measure (and then to stay at that level). Of course, drift does occur and can be accounted for (i.e., the power meter needs to be zeroed if you go from say a very hot to very cold environment and vice versa).

Ric


individual unit (although of course it's perfectly possible that

amaferanga

Team4Luke wrote:

power is of no use whatsover unless also measured against distance completed using time/speed - fact.

No it's not, even if you say it is.

Team4Luke wrote:

Who cares how much power is outputted unless your seeing your training times actually coming down regulary in real time.

I care more about power than a ride time that is influenced by so many other factors.

Team4Luke wrote:

My racing mate trained with power for one year, he has now junked it because he massively undertrained.

He's probably about as stupid as Trev then. It wasn't the power meter that was the problem, it was your mate's understanding of how to use it.

Team4Luke wrote:

Having said that I don't believe in any training less than 20mins duration for TT nor short intervals, you won't make big time gains from these no matter what all the research papers produce.....

Nonsense. We're not all interested in time trials anyway, but if you don't think you can improve your TT performance by doing e.g. VO2max intervals of ~5-8 minutes then you're simply wrong.

I can't be bothered with the rest.

ric/rstsport

Team4Luke wrote:

power is of no use whatsover unless also measured against distance completed using time/speed - fact.

i don't think anyone has said otherwise?

Who cares how much power is outputted unless your seeing your training times actually coming down regulary in real time.

over a given course, the only way for your time to come down (or vice versa - to go up), is because your power went up, the temperature increased, or your CdA decreased (or some combination of these), or the wind became more favourable. (obviously, i'm excluding traffic conditions etc here).

However, your time could stay the same while your power decreased for a myriad of reasons (e.g., your CdA increased because it was a hot day and you undid your jersey and it flapped about, or the temperature decreased and thus air density increased).

So, really, in terms of measuring fitness the only thing that matters is your power goes up. (of course ensuring your CdA is decreased so that you're more aerodynamic is also important, but that's not a fitness issue per se).

My racing mate trained with power for one year, he has now junked it because he massively undertrained.

that's not the fault of the power meter though!!! That's bad training! (or an external factor, e.g. he had less time to train)

Power is fine for measuring short efforts maybe upto 20mins as you can know pretty much exactly where to maintain the watts power especially setting off where you can ensure you don't overdo it, with HR you might set off bit too hard and have to wait for HR to catch up. Having said that I don't believe in any training less than 20mins duration for TT nor short intervals, you won't make big time gains from these no matter what all the research papers produce, you will from training at much longer around an hour typically for short distance TT, once riding beyond 20mins any power would follow a pretty much stable HR while travelling so HR is fine for long efforts just as good as power, so if your doing 300watts for an hour you will likely be showing a similar HR for that time anyway, might be around 170bpm say so you can just follow that. The argument would be drift, well HR actually drifts down not up as you get tired and it becomes harder to stay at the HR thus you actually push yourself harder to stay there becoming a very effective session.

at a constant power output, heart rate drifts upwards for many, many, hours. It would certainly drift upwards for the duration of most peoples regular training routines. i would suggest that in extreme duration events such as a 24 hour TT it may also drift down, but i'm not 100% certain, and have little evidence either way for such a duration.

Similary your legs will tire riding at watts and the same will happen although the power users like to perpetuate a myth that you can just ride and complete any session at any power as though your legs or cardio or HR are not affected and you can just do it.

again, i don't know what you've been smoking (!) but this is completely untrue. I'd love to be able to complete a session at any power. Oh, lets see i'll pick 450 W for an hour. (if i could do that i'd be in with a chance of winning the Tour de France). However, in reality if i try riding at 450 W, i'll quickly blow a gasket and be on my knees and back at zero watts after about 90-secs. So, no, you can't just do it, and no one has ever said you can!

Ric

Trev The Rev

Ric,

I pretty sure Obree had tyre warming covered but I can't speak for his figures or methods.

Trev.

amerfaranga,

I don't mind being called stupid, particularly when I'm saying things which are intended to wind up the usual suspects, but Team4Luke's mate might be highly intelligent. You don't agree with Team4Luke, fair enough, so explain why you think he is wrong. His opinion is as valid as yours but whenever people question the use of a power meter on here they seem to get insulted and smothered by those who are pro power meters.

Trev.

ric/rstsport

i'm sure that it's actually extremely difficult to cover the aspect of tyre/roller warming. you likely wouldn't be aware of it without an external power meter (essentially, because your fatigue, would mask your perception of the absolute power output, as well as the fact that there's little to no respite from the boredom).

I covered team4lukes diatribe. his mate may well be highly intelligent, but apparently not at training and power meters though.

Ric

Trev The Rev

Ric/RSTSport wrote:

i'm sure that it's actually extremely difficult to cover the aspect of tyre/roller warming. you likely wouldn't be aware of it without an external power meter (essentially, because your fatigue, would mask your perception of the absolute power output, as well as the fact that there's little to no respite from the boredom).

I covered team4lukes diatribe. his mate may well be highly intelligent, but apparently not at training and power meters though.

Ric

Obree is highly intelligent, I do not dismiss any of his ideas lightly, if he says he is accurate to 0.5% I accept his word for it. Team4Luke's mate has discarded his power meter, that does not mean he is not intelligent at training. As usual whenever someone has an opinion or has made a decision which does not fit in with your power meter dogma you feel the need to disparage the person.

doyler78

Trev The Rev wrote:

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.

I've read his book and whilst he might say this or say that in it what he actually does is follow a progressive, periodised training plan and the way in which uses the turbo is much the same as you would use a power meter so he's actually pretty conventional. His eccentricity and obsessiveness makes him say things that actually aren't consistent with what he does from what I can make of what he has written.

If you followed his plan you would do better but who on earth would want to do things in the way he has chosen to do them!!

As regards the setup process of the turbo he has certainly tried to think of everything that might introduce error but nowhere does he explain how he arrived at his 0.5% accuracy claim or at least I can't recall it. Without that there is a credibility issue over the claims. I personally wouldn't doubt him too much. I'd say his setup is probably as good as power meter and whether it is bette who knows but still I'd rather have the evidence to backup his claims especially when you diss power meters because of they just aren't accurate enough

ric/rstsport

I don't for one minute dismiss Obree's ideas. However, i am saying, based on the (very thin) evidence you have provided (i haven't checked his set up to verify one way or another) it is unlikely he has solved the issue of the roller-tyre interface heating up. While this issue occurs in many turbos, it doesn't happen in them all (so he could have a constant effort there), but again, he may not have solved the issue and just isn't aware of it. Perhaps, he has someone standing next to him while he rides pouring cold water on the roller? It's not just Obree that i'm sceptical about, i'm just generally sceptical and like to see some sort of evidence to support or refute a point. There's nothing here that you've presented that supports the conclusion that Obree kept his turbo within 0.5% accuracy when a multitude of my turbo trainers (from cheap to expensive) have all suffered with huge drift.

As regards T4L's mate he simply isn't intelligent (more accurately, he wasn't using it correctly) at training and using a power meter, as he was making many mistakes that i would ascribe to most beginners with a power meter. That doesn't mean he isn't intelligent at training (although i'm ambivalent on this as i have no evidence either way) he could very well be. he could be intelligent at other things. I haven't been disparaging per se, i have simply said he doesn't know how to use a power meter with training well. There are many ways to use that combination well (i.e., you don't just have to follow 'my way') but apparently he didn't use any of the ways well.

Ric

Trev The Rev

Ric/RSTSport wrote:

I don't for one minute dismiss Obree's ideas. However, i am saying, based on the (very thin) evidence you have provided (i haven't checked his set up to verify one way or another) it is unlikely he has solved the issue of the roller-tyre interface heating up. While this issue occurs in many turbos, it doesn't happen in them all (so he could have a constant effort there), but again, he may not have solved the issue and just isn't aware of it. Perhaps, he has someone standing next to him while he rides pouring cold water on the roller? It's not just Obree that i'm sceptical about, i'm just generally sceptical and like to see some sort of evidence to support or refute a point. There's nothing here that you've presented that supports the conclusion that Obree kept his turbo within 0.5% accuracy when a multitude of my turbo trainers (from cheap to expensive) have all suffered with huge drift.

As regards T4L's mate he simply isn't intelligent (more accurately, he wasn't using it correctly) at training and using a power meter, as he was making many mistakes that i would ascribe to most beginners with a power meter. That doesn't mean he isn't intelligent at training (although i'm ambivalent on this as i have no evidence either way) he could very well be. he could be intelligent at other things. I haven't been disparaging per se, i have simply said he doesn't know how to use a power meter with training well. There are many ways to use that combination well (i.e., you don't just have to follow 'my way') but apparently he didn't use any of the ways well.

Ric

For all we know T4L's mate was using his power meter correctly and training correctly with it but the whole power meter data approach did not work as well as his previous approach. You would need to see exactly why he did better without one. Just assuming he used the power meter wrongly is a cop out.

ric/rstsport

i'm going on what T4L wrote

Herbsman

Team4Luke wrote:

power is of no use whatsover unless also measured against distance completed using time/speed - fact. Who cares how much power is outputted unless your seeing your training times actually coming down regulary in real time.
My racing mate trained with power for one year, he has now junked it because he massively undertrained.
Power is fine for measuring short efforts maybe upto 20mins as you can know pretty much exactly where to maintain the watts power especially setting off where you can ensure you don't overdo it, with HR you might set off bit too hard and have to wait for HR to catch up. Having said that I don't believe in any training less than 20mins duration for TT nor short intervals, you won't make big time gains from these no matter what all the research papers produce, you will from training at much longer around an hour typically for short distance TT, once riding beyond 20mins any power would follow a pretty much stable HR while travelling so HR is fine for long efforts just as good as power, so if your doing 300watts for an hour you will likely be showing a similar HR for that time anyway, might be around 170bpm say so you can just follow that. The argument would be drift, well HR actually drifts down not up as you get tired and it becomes harder to stay at the HR thus you actually push yourself harder to stay there becoming a very effective session. Similary your legs will tire riding at watts and the same will happen although the power users like to perpetuate a myth that you can just ride and complete any session at any power as though your legs or cardio or HR are not affected and you can just do it.
If you ride with power fine just ensure you monitor everything else.

Have you tried using paragraph breaks?

doyler78

Herbsman wrote:

Team4Luke wrote:

power is of no use whatsover unless also measured against distance completed using time/speed - fact. Who cares how much power is outputted unless your seeing your training times actually coming down regulary in real time.
My racing mate trained with power for one year, he has now junked it because he massively undertrained.
Power is fine for measuring short efforts maybe upto 20mins as you can know pretty much exactly where to maintain the watts power especially setting off where you can ensure you don't overdo it, with HR you might set off bit too hard and have to wait for HR to catch up. Having said that I don't believe in any training less than 20mins duration for TT nor short intervals, you won't make big time gains from these no matter what all the research papers produce, you will from training at much longer around an hour typically for short distance TT, once riding beyond 20mins any power would follow a pretty much stable HR while travelling so HR is fine for long efforts just as good as power, so if your doing 300watts for an hour you will likely be showing a similar HR for that time anyway, might be around 170bpm say so you can just follow that. The argument would be drift, well HR actually drifts down not up as you get tired and it becomes harder to stay at the HR thus you actually push yourself harder to stay there becoming a very effective session. Similary your legs will tire riding at watts and the same will happen although the power users like to perpetuate a myth that you can just ride and complete any session at any power as though your legs or cardio or HR are not affected and you can just do it.
If you ride with power fine just ensure you monitor everything else.

Have you tried using paragraph breaks?

He did. Did you not see his last sentence

FatTed

Trev The Rev wrote:

Ric,

I pretty sure Obree had tyre warming covered but I can't speak for his figures or methods.

Trev.

amerfaranga,

I don't mind being called stupid, particularly when I'm saying things which are intended to wind up the usual suspects, but Team4Luke's mate might be highly intelligent. You don't agree with Team4Luke, fair enough, so explain why you think he is wrong. His opinion is as valid as yours but whenever people question the use of a power meter on here they seem to get insulted and smothered by those who are pro power meters.

Trev.

Why is his opinion as valid as amerfaranga?

amaferanga

Trev The Rev wrote:

I don't mind being called stupid, particularly when I'm saying things which are intended to wind up the usual suspects, but Team4Luke's mate might be highly intelligent. You don't agree with Team4Luke, fair enough, so explain why you think he is wrong. His opinion is as valid as yours but whenever people question the use of a power meter on here they seem to get insulted and smothered by those who are pro power meters.

Trev.

He might be and so might you, but knowing so little about both of you and based only what I've read on here there was no evidence of highly intelligent individuals.

Trev The Rev

FatTed wrote:

Trev The Rev wrote:

Ric,

I pretty sure Obree had tyre warming covered but I can't speak for his figures or methods.

Trev.

amerfaranga,

I don't mind being called stupid, particularly when I'm saying things which are intended to wind up the usual suspects, but Team4Luke's mate might be highly intelligent. You don't agree with Team4Luke, fair enough, so explain why you think he is wrong. His opinion is as valid as yours but whenever people question the use of a power meter on here they seem to get insulted and smothered by those who are pro power meters.

Trev.

Why is his opinion as valid as amerfaranga?

The point I'm making is calling people stupid is not an argument. On a forum people should be able to state their opinion without getting abused.

The power meter, data, numbers approach does not work for everyone. Some people's brains / minds are wired differently, that does not make them stupid.

ric/rstsport

isn't the definition of stupid repeatedly doing something that is wrong and expecting a different answer?

bahzob

Sure there is more heat than light in this topic.

Anyway with regard to the OP and any other luddites out there, I guess they hasn't been paying attention this year.

British Cycling has had it's best year ever and now is in a dominant position that many would have thought the world of fantasy just a few years ago. We are the best simple as that.

This is all due to a program initiated by Peter Keen and carried forward by Dave Brailsford.

The whole of what they have achieved is based on the fundamental idea that cycling is not complicated and can be treated as essentially a scientific endeavour where you aim to maximise performance through, as they keep hammering away about "the aggregation of marginal gains".

This is only possible if you have measures and power is by far the most important of these measures. You only have to listen to Peter Keen, Shane Sutton, Chris Boardman talk about training and it won't be long before they mention it in one context or another.

The message comes our loud and clear in Bradley Wiggins's latest book. I have read many bios of many cyclists and this is by far the most "technical" in terms of the amount of detail it goes into in terms of training.

There are 2 clear messages from this book wrt this topic:
- Bradley Wiggins would not have won the tour if he had not used power based training.
- It's gobsmacking how amateurish some other teams seem to have been in terms of applying power based training. Their approach seems to have been very slapdash. To a large extent British Cycling been so successful because they have taken and adopted ideas that have been around for ages while other teams just seem to have ignored them.

It's somewhat satisfying to think this may be, in part, because they have preferred to follow a drugs route. It's especially satisfying as the need to be competitive on what clearly wasn't a level playing field was one driver for BC's thoroughness.

Whatever, power training works.

Trev The Rev

Ric/RSTSport wrote:

isn't the definition of stupid repeatedly doing something that is wrong and expecting a different answer?

There has been some research which shows that incompetent people do not realise they are incompetent and make many mistakes but that competent people are aware they are fallible, make far fewer mistakes and learn from them.

http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Inco ... 783375.php

bahzob

Trev The Rev wrote:

Ric/RSTSport wrote:

isn't the definition of stupid repeatedly doing something that is wrong and expecting a different answer?

There has been some research which shows that incompetent people do not realise they are incompetent and make many mistakes but that competent people are aware they are fallible, make far fewer mistakes and learn from them.

http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Inco ... 783375.php

POF over the years there has been some research to "prove" pretty much any idea you care to mention.

Simply pointing to isolated examples of these shows a complete failure to understand what the scientific process is and how knowledge progresses.

bahzob

Just to amplify for the hard of brain.

Scientific knowledge only rarely progresses as the result of one or even a number of "breakthrough" experiments. So you cannot point to a single study and say "see this shows it does/doesn't work".

Far more often opinion changes and knowledge consequently grows as a result of an overwhelming body of evidence on one side of an argument that outweigh a few counter examples on the other.

Climate change is a good example from recent history but there have been plenty over the years. For more on this read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradigm_shift (If you havn't done so then you are not really in position to discuss this topic).

Wrt to the OP we are at that point now with regards to power based training. Notwithstanding the occasional rogue study the overwhelming body of evidence is that it works.

If "proof" were needed then the experience of British Cycling over the past years could be viewed as a grand "experiment" producing a body of evidence both theoretical and in terms of actual end results that is conclusive for all those with a modicum of intelligence.

Ofc, people being what they are, there will always be outliers who choose not to accept this. That's to be expected, it just lends evidence to another scientific theory that intelligence varies within a population.

Trev The Rev

Do not assume I do not agree with training with power. I am in fact very pro power meters, they are in my opinion the holy grail in training.

I do have a problem with their cost, lack of robustness, reliability and (some types not all) their accuracy and repeatability.

I also personally do not like the software and the way power meters are used by some coaches - but that is my personal opinion. Sometimes you have to accept the main stream - like we had to embrace VHS and throw the Betamax video recorder in the bin. No point talking in ancient Norse or Latin when the world communicates in English.

Power meters are here to stay - hopefully they will improve and get cheaper sooner rather than later.

But I also think you can train effectively without a power meter and people should remember the power data is only one part of the whole picture. I don't think power meters are the answer for everyone. They may be essential to a pro rider - more essential to some than others - but for the rest of us the money might be better spent.

Herbsman

Ok so can you give examples of how the money might be better spent on improving performance for the amateur rider? Coaching? Training camps? Caffeine pills and nicotine patches?

Trev The Rev

Herbsman wrote:

Ok so can you give examples of how the money might be better spent on improving performance for the amateur rider? Coaching? Training camps? Caffeine pills and nicotine patches?

http://www.purdey.com/

Herbsman

Trev The Rev wrote:

Herbsman wrote:

Ok so can you give examples of how the money might be better spent on improving performance for the amateur rider? Coaching? Training camps? Caffeine pills and nicotine patches?

http://www.purdey.com/

:roll:

GiantMike

Trev The Rev wrote:

I don't mind being called stupid, particularly when I'm saying things which are intended to wind up the usual suspects

Sorry if this sounds personal, but if you're trying to appear to be an idiot then I fail to see the point of going to such lengths. Do you also walk around at work with your tackle out to perpetuate the impression of stupidity or just save it for here?

If you genuinely don't believe what you write, why don't you save everybody the bother and stop posting? Or do you believe some of what you write but not all of it? If so, we could ask BR to generate a clown smilie that you could use while posting.

Trev The Rev

GiantMike wrote:

Trev The Rev wrote:

I don't mind being called stupid, particularly when I'm saying things which are intended to wind up the usual suspects

Sorry if this sounds personal, but if you're trying to appear to be an idiot then I fail to see the point of going to such lengths. Do you also walk around at work with your tackle out to perpetuate the impression of stupidity or just save it for here?

If you genuinely don't believe what you write, why don't you save everybody the bother and stop posting? Or do you believe some of what you write but not all of it? If so, we could ask BR to generate a clown smilie that you could use while posting.

You are wound up. Add yourself to list of usual suspects.

GiantMike

Trev The Rev wrote:

You are wound up. Add yourself to list of usual suspects.

No, I'm not wound up. I'm genuinely confused though.

The Usual Suspects are the people who regularly refute your rambings. I can't be bothered because there really is no point. This post will go away and then you'll start another; something like 'Do Powermeters give you herpes?' or 'Jimmy Savile had a powermeter and look what happened next'.

Oh, and if you're trying to set yourself up as the BR ubertroll, you're far behind the best on here. Maybe you should try training with a trollmeter.

Herbsman

GiantMike wrote:

Trev The Rev wrote:

You are wound up. Add yourself to list of usual suspects.

No, I'm not wound up. I'm genuinely confused though.

The Usual Suspects are the people who regularly refute your rambings. I can't be bothered because there really is no point. This post will go away and then you'll start another; something like 'Do Powermeters give you herpes?' or 'Jimmy Savile had a powermeter and look what happened next'.

Oh, and if you're trying to set yourself up as the BR ubertroll, you're far behind the best on here. Maybe you should try training with a trollmeter.

I dread to think how low his functional troll power is... probably only about 220 watts

Trev The Rev

bahzob wrote:

Just to amplify for the hard of brain.

Scientific knowledge only rarely progresses as the result of one or even a number of "breakthrough" experiments. So you cannot point to a single study and say "see this shows it does/doesn't work".

Far more often opinion changes and knowledge consequently grows as a result of an overwhelming body of evidence on one side of an argument that outweigh a few counter examples on the other.

Climate change is a good example from recent history but there have been plenty over the years. For more on this read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradigm_shift (If you havn't done so then you are not really in position to discuss this topic).

Wrt to the OP we are at that point now with regards to power based training. Notwithstanding the occasional rogue study the overwhelming body of evidence is that it works.

If "proof" were needed then the experience of British Cycling over the past years could be viewed as a grand "experiment" producing a body of evidence both theoretical and in terms of actual end results that is conclusive for all those with a modicum of intelligence.

Ofc, people being what they are, there will always be outliers who choose not to accept this. That's to be expected, it just lends evidence to another scientific theory that intelligence varies within a population.

British Cycling as far as track is concerned really don't have that much competition. You could take many minority sports and bung that much money at them and win a lot of medals. The longevity of Pendleton & Hoy says a lot about them as athletes but not a lot about BC's ability to find talent and take an athlete forward. They should have found people and been able to train them up to beat Pendleton & Hoy. I would have more time for the present set up if Hoy & Pendleton were unable to keep up with the younger talent BC have had several years to bring through.

Didn't some woman who used to row reasonably well take up cycling on the track - she proved to be faster than any woman BC had years to train up?

As far as Sky today, biggest budget, employed dodgy doctors and dodgy ex cyclists, used power meters like every other team. If Sky were the only team using power meters it might be more relevant.