Power meter - am I wasting my money?
careful
Posts: 720
I have ordered a Stages power meter, but I am starting to think I may be wasting my cash. I am not a serious athlete but I like to try to improve my fitness, and I quite enjoy fiddling with numbers and gadgets. Having read Hunter Allen's book and numerous threads on here, I am still unsure whether perceived exertion, heart rate or power zones are the bottom line when deciding how much effort I should put in. I am not really interested in the Stages v other power meter debate, but I would love to hear from riders who have tried power meters and found them to have/not have practical benefits to their performance without too much in depth analysis. Would a less serious rider like myself be better off just sticking with my heart rate meter and PE.
0
Comments
-
Coming from a "don't have a PM but would like one" camp ...
Yes - a PM is pretty much a waste of money for ppl like you and me - not overly serious but like playing with numbers and gadgets - our analysis is sketchy at best and we probably make up loads of excuses for non-performance ...
But then the whole sport is pretty much a waste of money if all we want to do is get fitter - there are far cheaper ways to do this without having to spend hundreds or thousands on bits of kit ...
On the other hand - stages is probably the PM that I'll get as it's the lowest cost and power numbers interest me - plus it gives a repeatable measure of how I'm doing - am I putting on weight or muscle? am I getting faster/fitter or lazier? Plus, it's one of those PMs that you can't easily see is on the bike so it doesn't look like "all the gear and no idea" and by sticking to the same crankset across the bikes I could swap it around quickly and easily
0 -
The more effort you make to analyse your data properly, the more you are likely to get out of it. How much this is worth to you against the cost is something only you can answer. Since you have already paid for the PM without yet being convinced it has more value than a HRM, I'm guessing the cost is not a big deal to you!
Slowbike - a PM will not tell you if you are putting on weight or muscle.0 -
Having just got a powertap, second hand, and considering a stages for the other bike I would say they are a good tool.
I like having the figures to analyze and I am tryin to start using power on longer rides to help pace.
Is it essential for an enthusiastic amateur, probably not but the figures do become addictive.
If it's a 172.5 mm ultegra 6800 stages you aren't sure about then I'm in the market
0 -
-
Tom Dean wrote:
No - but if the power is staying the same and speed decreasing on the climbs then it's either headwind or fat ... 0 -
For Shimano cranks and the average punter, I can recommend saving £100 over the Ultegra by getting the 105. The stages 105 crank weighs only about 13g more than the Ultegra 6700 crank arm. And only a super sharp eyed person will notice you crank arms don't match.
I really like the Stages. Very easy to swap around bikes and absolutely nothing to suggest (for me at least) that one leg measurement makes any difference - I ran mine on my Tacx Fortius turbo - not only did the numbers match well (much to disprove most people's belief that the Tacx is inaccurate) and there was no drift between the two (suggesting a difference in my legs) over timeROAD < Scott Foil HMX Di2, Volagi Liscio Di2, Jamis Renegade Elite Di2, Cube Reaction Race > ROUGH0 -
I think its the best thing I've bought for the bike - it has really helped me track my performance and improve on it.
I've done about 5 sessions a week using it since November and have seen great improvements.
It all depends on you though - if you're only riding once a week - then it will just be a toy and give you more data to analyse. Sure you will improve - but you don't need it.
I think it really comes into its own on a turbo for motivation and assessment there.0 -
I think its the best thing I've bought for the bike - it has really helped me track my performance and improve on it.
Thanks all, I am encouraged by the positive view most seem to have. Cougie, can you be a bit more specific about how it helped you? - This is precisely the area I am unclear about. I understand the limitations of heart rate for short intervals due to the lag involved before you get any useful info - I assume a PM will give an immediate reading. I can also see the value of monitoring watts/kg. What else will it give me? Another problem I find with HR is that of fluctuations in readings even when my effort is pretty constant. Will a PM more closely and steadily monitor my effort? Hunter Allens book seems to suggest that the watts readings will fluctuate - but is this simply because of varying effort due to hills etc; would I get a steady reading with a steady effort? I know that I will get the answers to most of my questions when I try using it, but by then it will be too late to send it back0 -
I've had a PM for four months and love it (Power2max). I take my cycling pretty seriously (14 hrs riding a week) and have aims and goals for this year so for me a PM seemed quite important. That said I ride with a club, only a few others have one, and most others of my level are still improving without one!
It's impossible to keep exact watts, they will fluctuate a bit (best use 3s av and 30s av readings), and even a small inline or descent (as in almost flat) will see your numbers rise/fall quite alot. After a few months use, I'm now alot more used to it and can keep the numbers closer to where they should be for a given interval or segment etc but I try not to get too precious about keeping the an exact power output - as many have said zones don't have exact starts and ends, they 'blend' into each other.
I really enjoy geeking out and analyzing my date using Golden Cheetah. It really shows your strengths and weaknesses. I now almost never look at my speed - it's pretty irrelevant. I only look at power and HR (depending on what I'm doing), and NP to show if my pace for a training ride is correct or not.
It also motivates you and shows you're improving. I went on a chaingang on Tuesday and recorded a great set of numbers which tell me I've come a long way in a few months!
Above all though, a PM won't get you fit or faster. It's how you train that will do that, and you need quite a bit of discipline.0 -
Thamks for the advice madasahattersley - I do wonder if I'm taking it too seriously, but I ride about 10 hours a week and just riding around can get a bit boring. As wavefront said, all I really want from the PM is that it will motivate me and show weaknesses/improvement (as using a HRM has done). Enjoying the ride is still the main aim, but the other stuff seems to add another layer of interest for me. I realise that on its own it wont make me faster but I like to work to a plan (even though my aims a re a bit vague)!0
-
SwainDogg wrote:
It doesn't. Why do you think it does?0 -
It's just a common quote and generalisation that people on here use to sound like they know what they're talking about. Certainly forms of anaerobic power depend on muscle bulk. Muscle form and shape and proportion change as you train more and power increases.0
-
No doubt that a PM is a serious training tool and that power is by far the best way to track performance or set effort levels on individual training sessions.
I'd also say that it isn't necessarily a waste of money either even if you are just a keen amateur riding for pleasure and not competing. One great thing about it that can act as a motivator is that even when you are cycling in the worst conditions (rain, headwind) or slogging up a long hill and feel as if you are making no progress, you still have the power figures in front of you as evidence that you are "going well" (or not, as the case may be..). It's fun trying to keep your 10 second average power above 400w or whatever until you reach the top of a short hill, the feedback helps you put the effort in.
The other side of it is that you can become a minute-to-minute slave to average power or normalised power, so you need to know how to be able to switch off sometimes and ignore the power figures until you get home.0 -
SwainDogg wrote:It's just a common quote and generalisation that people on here use to sound like they know what they're talking about. Certainly forms of anaerobic power depend on muscle bulk. Muscle form and shape and proportion change as you train more and power increases.
We are talking about aerobic/sustainable power though, aren't we? In which case, muscle shape and proportion has very little to do with it...0 -
Imposter wrote:SwainDogg wrote:It's just a common quote and generalisation that people on here use to sound like they know what they're talking about. Certainly forms of anaerobic power depend on muscle bulk. Muscle form and shape and proportion change as you train more and power increases.
We are talking about aerobic/sustainable power though, aren't we? In which case, muscle shape and proportion has very little to do with it...
Are we? The original point someone made was essentially that muscle size and power output had no correlation. Very general and wrong. If you constantly ride making use of your aerobic system only (can't happen really) you would probably lose muscle bulk over time (diet variable) but your muscle form an proportion would change. All cyclists have a defined lateralis.0 -
SwainDogg wrote:
Are we? The original point someone made was essentially that muscle size and power output had no correlation. Very general and wrong. If you constantly ride making use of your aerobic system only (can't happen really) you would probably lose muscle bulk over time (diet variable) but your muscle form an proportion would change. All cyclists have a defined lateralis.
Not sure that's correct. There is no obvious correlation between the two, as far as I'm aware. If that were true, then the sprinter with the biggest legs would always win the kilo. As for definition, cyclists come in all shapes and sizes, as I'm sure you know. The forces involved in cycling are not really sufficient to bring about significant changes in muscle size - a bit, maybe, but not much.0 -
You're describing a direct correlation which definitely isn't the case I agree. Most sprinters have larger muscle bulk (McEwan and Cav aside maybe). If you lose too much lean muscle muscle mass then your power numbers may suffer. Muscles change when you cycle.0
-
In response to the OP. Depends on whether the benefits/unit cost is worth it to you. It will help you improve faster than working with HR or RPE. It will also be harder work most likely. The more time you have to train with a focused program will see your biggest gains.0
-
It's a red herring for this debate but there's no doubt that muscle contributes to power at the extremes - you only need to look at track sprinters and their massive thighs to see that. For endurance cycling there's obviously a huge trade-off as you have to carry that muscle about. I think for regular riders, the picture is more complicated - you will gain muscle as you first start out but plateau and it becomes far more about your cardio system than your muscles.ROAD < Scott Foil HMX Di2, Volagi Liscio Di2, Jamis Renegade Elite Di2, Cube Reaction Race > ROUGH0
-
Training with power is fun - it's a great way of tracking progress because it's (more or less) independent of conditions (especially normalised power). It's also good for pacing your effort. Like every device from the humble wired speedo, it just engages you a bit more in your ride and teaches you a little bit more about what's going onROAD < Scott Foil HMX Di2, Volagi Liscio Di2, Jamis Renegade Elite Di2, Cube Reaction Race > ROUGH0
-
If you are the kind of person that likes working to a structured plan then maybe get one - if you don't already work to a structured plan without one I wouldn't bother.
I'm sure we all know people who own and use power meters who don't train as efficiently as they could either because they just enjoy going out in groups and smashing it all the time or else they become so caught up in the numbers they avoid ever going out in groups and just smashing it, they become a safety blanket where they talk about getting another 10 or 20 watts for an hour but it never seems to translate to beating anyone in a race or keeping up with the fast lads on a training ride.[Castle Donington Ladies FC - going up in '22]0 -
I wrote a response to this earlier which disappeared somehow. Imposter has basically covered it.SwainDogg wrote:It's just a common quote and generalisation that people on here use to sound like they know what they're talking about. Certainly forms of anaerobic power depend on muscle bulk. Muscle form and shape and proportion change as you train more and power increases.
There may be a correlation between high muscle mass and high max power outputs. This specific point does not prove the general (not my generalisation) suggestion that heavy muscles = high power, or that one could infer muscle mass from PM data and whole body weight.
If you want to attack my motives for posting, maybe start with a valid argument of your own.0 -
Thanks... you have just contradicted yourself and agreed with me. I did have an argument. It was the one you're arguing with.0
-
No, you have misrepresented what I said:
No, it wasn't.SwainDogg wrote:The original point someone made was essentially that muscle size and power output had no correlation.
Just for amusement value I quote the following gem from the same post:SwainDogg wrote:All cyclists have a defined lateralis.0 -
Yes it was. You understanding of scientific terminology is lacking also. And what's so funny about that? Maybe you haven't but I don't know.0
-
Another ad hominem. Bravo.
I don't expect you to laugh, but you claimed you did know about 'all cyclists' lateralis'0 -
So you're saying they're not? Your use of Latin clearly shows your understanding of all topics is on a much higher level than mine.0
