Dissertation Help (Power Profiling) !!!

Avoneer

Hi Guys,
Really struggling getting my dissertation off the ground and need some help.
The title is "relationship between 10 seconds, 3 minute and 20 minute cycling power output".
The aim of the study is to "power profile" people so that they can train and make improvements based on their weaknesses ie. if they have good 10 second power and good 3 minute power, but poor 20 minute power, lots of threshold training required.
My initial hypothesis was "people with low 10 second power will have significantly lower 3 minute and 20 minutes power compared to people with high 10 second power", but I'm not sure about this.
Any thoughts, suggestions, pee taking etc. welcome.
Cheers in advance,
Pat.

RChung

Avoneer wrote:

Any thoughts, suggestions, pee taking etc. welcome.

Ask your dissertation advisor?

sirmol

Depending on the person (Obviously) I would have thought your initial thoughts wouldn't be inaccurate - same as sprinters and distance runners - Sprinters build up a lot of fast twitch muscles to help with that explosive power whilst distance runners build up slow twitch muscles to provide energy over a period of time. Translating that across to cycling 10 second power could be the fast twitch muscles whilst 20 minutes slower twitch. Again dependent on training, fitness, age etc.
I don't know but this would be my initial thoughts :?

JayKosta

Avoneer wrote:

...
The aim of the study is to "power profile" people so that they can train and make improvements based on their weaknesses ie. if they have good 10 second power and good 3 minute power, but poor 20 minute power, lots of threshold training required.
...

---

Will the 'methods' of this study include a training regimen that is derived from the initial 'power profile'? How long will the training last? How will you enlist test people?

With the 3-level testing - 10sec, 3min, 20min, there are many possible combinations. I'd suggest limiting it to 2 categories - 'better at short term power' and 'better at long term power'. And you'll also need a group for 'standard training' to use as a control group.

If your test subjects are experienced enthusiastic cyclists, then they might already be at a fairly high personal performance level, and a few weeks of 'special training' might not make a detectable difference.

I suggest you devise the project to be something that has a high probability of producing valid results and conclusions. The 'educational purpose' of the project is NOT that you discover some new break-through - it's that you show that you can develop a study that includes good science, and produces results that can be analyzed.

Jay Kosta
Endwell NY USA

Avoneer

Cheers guys - some good help there.

I've spoke to my dissertation supervisor, but came back even more confused - especially with the guy not being a cyclist.


Just for a bit of clarification, maybe I should have added "in amateur cyclist" to the title.


I have quite a few results from amateur cyclists for their 10 second, 3 minute and 20 minute power, all done under similar condition on a Wattbike and was hoping to use this data for the dissertation, hence my original title, but I like Jay's idea of only using two of the parameters.

I know there is a positive correlation between all the power outputs over all the times, but I fried my brain trying to think of how I could use this data.

Maybe I should change the title to "power profiling amateur cyclist using 10 second and 20 minute power outputs"

And then the hypothesis would be something like "there will be a significant positive correlation between 10 second power and 20 minute power in amateur cyclists".

Thanks,

Pat.

Tom Dean

Surely the whole point of power profiling is that the relationship between MMP at different durations is very individual?

RChung

Avoneer wrote:

I've spoke to my dissertation supervisor, but came back even more confused - especially with the guy not being a cyclist.

What field are you in, and which degree is this dissertation for?

ric/rstsport

he's doing sports science. undergrad level. (from the ttforum where he's asking the same question)

RChung

Ric/RSTSport wrote:

he's doing sports science. undergrad level. (from the ttforum where he's asking the same question)

Oh. OK, then speaking as a professor who teaches both undergrads and graduates, here's my advice: figure out what your advisor is saying and then do that. An undergrad dissertation is just a hoop you have to jump through, or a hurdle to cross. Do what your advisor wants you to do in order to get his or her signature on the title page. The (anonymous) people on internet forums may have good ideas but they're not the ones whose signatures will appear on your title page, or the ones writing your future letters of recommendation.

Avoneer

Thanks - but I'd rather do something that will help me with my coaching in the future and might benefit others (I'm doing a sports science degree and also coach Triathlon).

Pat.

Alex_Simmons/RST

Avoneer wrote:

Hi Guys,
Really struggling getting my dissertation off the ground and need some help.
The title is "relationship between 10 seconds, 3 minute and 20 minute cycling power output".
The aim of the study is to "power profile" people so that they can train and make improvements based on their weaknesses ie. if they have good 10 second power and good 3 minute power, but poor 20 minute power, lots of threshold training required.
My initial hypothesis was "people with low 10 second power will have significantly lower 3 minute and 20 minutes power compared to people with high 10 second power", but I'm not sure about this.
Any thoughts, suggestions, pee taking etc. welcome.
Cheers in advance,
Pat.

1. Listen to RChung.

2. Your initial hypothesis is wrong, except for the fact that you are talking absolute power (e.g. a 50kg female may well be lower on all counts than a 90kg male cyclist), so I suggest some anthropometric normalisation, with the simplest being expressing power output as a ratio relative to body mass.

3. As for using a power profile to guide training, it is only one of the inputs and in itself is insufficient for determining what, how and when someone should train. e.g. take your example athlete. If that was their power profile and they were interested in competing in Keirin racing, would you still suggest lots of threshold work? Riders like Chris Boardman and Chris Hoy have significantly different power profiles. According to your suggestion, Hoy should have done more threshold training, and Boardman spent lots of time sorting out his 10-second power. Of course that would be nonsense advice. Determining training needs requires far more than a power profile.

Finally, your idea is not novel and power profiling is progressing somewhat beyond using a few data points, but I'm not sure if that's important wrt your academic study.

lochindaal

or buy "Training and racing with a power meter" and all the info is in there and been done already

Avoneer

Thanks.

I've already got the book - and read it - thanks.

My initial proposal which my supervisor liked (bearing in mind he's not a cyclist) was to test 10 people on the wattbike to get their 3 minute MMP. Then to train 5 of them by heart rate zones alone for 6 weeks and to train 5 of them by power zones alone and then to repeat the 3 minute test.

In theory, the people training to the power zones should make more improvement than the other group.

I would also have a control group that would do no exercise between the two tests.

The aim would be that for time limited athletes, training by power would be a much more time efficient way to train giving them the most "bang for their buck".

My hypothesis would be "there will be a significant difference in test results between a group of people who train with heart rate zones and a group who train with power zones".

My supervisor liked this idea.

I'm thinking I should pursue this original idea now just to "jump through those hoops".

Pat.

RChung

Avoneer wrote:

My initial proposal which my supervisor liked (bearing in mind he's not a cyclist) was to test 10 people on the wattbike to get their 3 minute MMP. Then to train 5 of them by heart rate zones alone for 6 weeks and to train 5 of them by power zones alone and then to repeat the 3 minute test.

In theory, the people training to the power zones should make more improvement than the other group.

I would also have a control group that would do no exercise between the two tests.

Like this? http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3737823/

Avoneer

Very similar to that yes - that is so helpful !!!!

I've spent about two months trying to find a journal like that.

Seems like it would be a viable dissertation now.

Thanks,

Pat.

RChung

Avoneer

I prefer this one ;-)

thomasmorris

I think an interesting and possibly easier to assess study would be in to the variability of HR versus Power for time of day.

There are some very well accepted ideas around heart rate drift during an activity but I can't find reports on changes through the day.

Based on myself, I find my heart rate is 5-10 bpm higher for the same perceived effort in the morning than late afternoon. Before I had a power meter I thought my 'perceived effort' sensor might be off in the morning, or that cycling after breakfast increased my heart rate due to digestion as opposed to early afternoon when it had been 3 hours since a meal.

However, I've since got a power meter, and can see that bpm is up by 5-10 for the same power.. so my perceived effort is roughly correct. I've also started doing fasted rides in the morning, and still see the same increase which seems to debunk by 'just eaten theory'.

It would be pretty easy to get some good testing around this. One group ride fasted before breakfast and then ride 3 hours after lunch (when most food should be through the stomach) and compare the HR for the same power. Another group ride immediately after breakfast and immediately after lunch again comparing HR for the same power.

Or you could do efforts throughout the day fasted.

Basically you'd be looking to removed the variability of food intake to rule that out and so you can look at the variable of time since waking to see if there is a correlation between that and HR-versus power.
Hypothesis would be be: the greater the time elapsed from waking the higher the ratio of power produced to bpm.

You'd have to sort some details out like whether you test at threshold or at some other sub-maximal level. However, if you could show a significant correlation the conclusion could have implication for training with power versus training with heart rate zones: i.e. if you really on heart rate zones these may change versus perceived effort and power due to physiological changes related to the body clock.