Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 58
  1. #26
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    2,542
    Quote Originally Posted by BikeLayne View Post
    To expensive for me. Also If it makes my bike heavier I do no want it. The thing weighs enough already.
    Just out of curiosity what's your current bike? I.e. frame, components, wheels.

  2. #27
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,348
    I added a G3 power tap to my zipp 303 and barely saw any weight gain...i want to say 100 grams but I am always tinkering so I can't be sure what else was on the bike as far as before and after.
    Dogma, synapse disc, caad 10, de rosa neo primato, felt CX, epic, fat bike

  3. #28
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,348
    Quote Originally Posted by Got Time View Post
    Did you create that "structured training plan" yourself or did you get it from somewhere?
    How did you create/choose it?
    I started with a computrainer class - I learned a lot and that has helped a ton. its funny - very high short intervals are relatively easy for me but the long ones kick my rear.
    I think trainer road is the best deal for workouts to do on your own. swift may also have workouts soon
    Dogma, synapse disc, caad 10, de rosa neo primato, felt CX, epic, fat bike

  4. #29
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    551
    Quote Originally Posted by Drew Eckhardt View Post
    4iiii single-sided crank arm units are $400.
    Yeah, I want to wait until there are several decent reviews of the 4iiii from people who have ridden them for a few months. I don't want to be the beta-pilot.

  5. #30
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: Srode's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    2,469
    Quote Originally Posted by Donn12 View Post
    very high short intervals are relatively easy for me
    You probably aren't doing them right then!
    Moderation is boring - do epic s##t

    Trek Domane
    Niner RLT9 (Gravel Bike)
    Trek Crockett

  6. #31
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: the_gormandizer's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    360
    Quote Originally Posted by Srode View Post
    You probably aren't doing them right then!
    You are right. I think the "proper" definition of an interval is doing any sustained effort long enough to make the effort suck!

  7. #32
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    428
    ^+1 LOL

    Maybe in our high-tech component future, when we have virtual heads-up displays in our helmets and glasses, as we begin an interval session, a little notice will flash up in our vision saying:

    "YOU HAVE NOW ENTERED THE SUCK ZONE"

  8. #33
    Crank Addict
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    1,790
    I have power meters on both bikes... IMO, they are actually far more useful for training than they are for simply riding.

    On the trainer, I use the power meter almost everyday. I've got quite a few structured workouts, aimed at varying goals but each one involves using certain percentages of my FTP number to train and build more power.... with steady training over the winter, I've seen my FTP go from 212 last fall to 270 by this spring.

    During actual rides... it really doesn't come into play unless you're trying to pace yourself for sustained efforts over lengths of time.... i.e. you have a 20 minute climb, you know what power level you can hold. This can be useful if you and your buddies are having a bragging rights battle about who can climb the local mountain the fastest. Obviously, It can also help with races and time trials, but if you're not doing much of that stuff then it won't really matter.
    ___________________________
    2016 Pactimo Brand Ambassador

    www.Crankaddicts.cc

    www.skratchlabs.com
    www.hilltopbicycles.com

    2015 S-Works DSW Allez
    2015 Specialized Venge Pro
    2016 Specialized Fatboy Comp

  9. #34
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,348
    Quote Originally Posted by TricrossRich View Post
    I have power meters on both bikes... IMO, they are actually far more useful for training than they are for simply riding.

    On the trainer, I use the power meter almost everyday. I've got quite a few structured workouts, aimed at varying goals but each one involves using certain percentages of my FTP number to train and build more power.... with steady training over the winter, I've seen my FTP go from 212 last fall to 270 by this spring.

    During actual rides... it really doesn't come into play unless you're trying to pace yourself for sustained efforts over lengths of time.... i.e. you have a 20 minute climb, you know what power level you can hold. This can be useful if you and your buddies are having a bragging rights battle about who can climb the local mountain the fastest. Obviously, It can also help with races and time trials, but if you're not doing much of that stuff then it won't really matter.

    212 to 270 is a nice gain!
    Dogma, synapse disc, caad 10, de rosa neo primato, felt CX, epic, fat bike

  10. #35
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: spade2you's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    12,084
    Quote Originally Posted by Donn12 View Post
    212 to 270 is a nice gain!
    Very much so. Makes me wish I had a PM when I first started out.

  11. #36
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    4,998
    Quote Originally Posted by TricrossRich View Post
    I have power meters on both bikes... IMO, they are actually far more useful for training than they are for simply riding.

    On the trainer, I use the power meter almost everyday. I've got quite a few structured workouts, aimed at varying goals but each one involves using certain percentages of my FTP number to train and build more power.... with steady training over the winter, I've seen my FTP go from 212 last fall to 270 by this spring.

    During actual rides... it really doesn't come into play unless you're trying to pace yourself for sustained efforts over lengths of time.... i.e. you have a 20 minute climb, you know what power level you can hold. This can be useful if you and your buddies are having a bragging rights battle about who can climb the local mountain the fastest. Obviously, It can also help with races and time trials, but if you're not doing much of that stuff then it won't really matter.
    I'm at 210 now........I guess there's hope for me still to get higher. I guess I should stop riding so much mtb, LOL.


    On the serious side and using the PM for long hauls. Yeah, that worked for me on a 50 min climb. My buddy just rode it. I started slower and paced. He went hard, then slowed and I passed him. He recovered and passed me again. Then, he blows again. Finally, he blows up completely when we are 80% done. I picked it up and had something left for the final 200 meters.
    It's a fire road.............
    I'm on a road bike..........

    They have enough in common to blast down it.

  12. #37
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: joeinchi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    399
    This is always an interesting debate. While there's no question that power meters provide a higher degree of accuracy, I also believe you can achieve similar performance gains through HR training--IF you are equally diligent with regards to baseline efforts, training zones and efficiency testing.

    The Power Meter, alone, doesn't produce results; it's the purposeful training and consistent effort which allows people to improve their performance. Knowing your threshold, training in the right zones and monitoring progress will make you a stronger rider. But you don't need a power meter to do that.

    Sure there's "noise" in HR data (lag, cardiac drift, etc.) but that's not the same as saying it doesn't work. If you want to stick with your HRM, just keep in mind that the zone percentages are different for Lactate Threshold HR (LTHR) vs. FTP and have at it.

    Power meter or not?-power-zones.png
    Last edited by joeinchi; 06-18-2015 at 09:49 AM.
    Joe

    Experiencing back, neck or hand pain? Watch this short video:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rm8ML7eWUkk

  13. #38
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: stevesbike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    5,594
    Quote Originally Posted by joeinchi View Post
    This is always an interesting debate. While there's no question that power meters provide a higher degree of accuracy, I also believe you can achieve similar performance gains through HR training--IF you are equally diligent with regards to baseline efforts, training zones and efficiency testing.

    The Power Meter, alone, doesn't produce results; it's the purposeful training and consistent effort which allows people to improve their performance. Knowing your threshold, training in the right zones and monitoring progress will make you a stronger rider. But you don't need a power meter to do that.

    Sure there's "noise" in HR data (lag, cardiac drift, etc.) but that's not the same as saying it doesn't work. If you want to stick with your HRM, just keep in mind that the zone percentages are different for Lactate Threshold HR (LTHR) vs. FTP and have at it.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	power-zones.png 
Views:	882 
Size:	87.5 KB 
ID:	306864
    but this misses the entire point of power training. It provides a quantitative metric of training stress - TSS, for which you can develop training load metrics in the short term (ATL) and longer term (CTL). This provides a way to structure training, to gauge fitness, and to understand recovery. HRM methods (e.g., TRIMP) don't do this.

  14. #39
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: ibericb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    4,578
    Quote Originally Posted by stevesbike View Post
    but this misses the entire point of power training. It provides a quantitative metric of training stress - TSS, for which you can develop training load metrics in the short term (ATL) and longer term (CTL). This provides a way to structure training, to gauge fitness, and to understand recovery. HRM methods (e.g., TRIMP) don't do this.
    Rubbish!

    Heart rate is a direct indication of the total physiological stress endured by an athlete. It can be and has been widely used to structure training programs for decades, based on exactly the same physiological principles as power meters are being used uniquely by cyclists today. The problem with heart rate is that it reflects total physiological stress, which can be perturbed by things other than physical effort (e.g., temperature, degree of recovery from prior effort, etc.). As a result the same heart rate day-to-day (same total physiological stress) will result in different output power levels.

    Power, on the other hand, is an indirect measure of physiological stress. It's measuring physical output, and the broadly held assumption is that the same power output reflects the same physiological stress, day-to-day, which is patently not true. The stress experienced by a rider today producing X watts can be appreciably different than that experienced tomorrow at the same power output. It is attractive, however, because power is directly related to net performance, and that's related to wins/losses.

    Neither is better, they are just different. The basic physiological principles underlying well structured training programs are the exactly same in both cases. Both are equally useful to the extent that they are understood. Th best solution is to use both together, simultaneously.

    Edit- meant to add this reference, a 2011 study that directly compared the relative effectiveness of the two devices. Quoting from that study:
    "Furthermore, our findings indicate that there is no empirical evidence for the
    superiority of any single type of device in the implementation of interval training. This study indicates that there are no noticeable advantages to using PM to increase performance in the average recreational cyclist, suggesting that low cost HR monitor are equally capable as training devices."
    Last edited by ibericb; 06-19-2015 at 04:19 AM.
    "When man invented the bicycle he reached the peak of his attainments."
    -Elizabeth Howard West

    Never use your face as a brake pad.
    -Jake Watson

  15. #40
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    918
    Stages may still have DA 7900 power meters for $449. I just installed mine last night.

  16. #41
    dcb
    dcb is offline
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    386
    Quote Originally Posted by steelbikerider View Post
    Stages may still have DA 7900 power meters for $449. I just installed mine last night.
    I was just going to bring this up. The price of admission has come way down and I think the DA crank arm is compatible with multiple Shimano cranks so you don't have to have an entire DA crankset.

    If you've got the money I don't see why it's any different investing in a PM if you already make some effort to use HR and a cycling computer to measure your progress/regress and attempt to create some sort of structured training plan. You are just bringing in another, better tool for the job. Now whether or not you use it correctly is another question.
    Last edited by dcb; 06-19-2015 at 07:24 PM.

  17. #42
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: stevesbike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    5,594
    Quote Originally Posted by ibericb View Post
    Rubbish!

    Heart rate is a direct indication of the total physiological stress endured by an athlete. It can be and has been widely used to structure training programs for decades, based on exactly the same physiological principles as power meters are being used uniquely by cyclists today. The problem with heart rate is that it reflects total physiological stress, which can be perturbed by things other than physical effort (e.g., temperature, degree of recovery from prior effort, etc.). As a result the same heart rate day-to-day (same total physiological stress) will result in different output power levels.

    Power, on the other hand, is an indirect measure of physiological stress. It's measuring physical output, and the broadly held assumption is that the same power output reflects the same physiological stress, day-to-day, which is patently not true. The stress experienced by a rider today producing X watts can be appreciably different than that experienced tomorrow at the same power output. It is attractive, however, because power is directly related to net performance, and that's related to wins/losses.

    Neither is better, they are just different. The basic physiological principles underlying well structured training programs are the exactly same in both cases. Both are equally useful to the extent that they are understood. Th best solution is to use both together, simultaneously.

    Edit- meant to add this reference, a 2011 study that directly compared the relative effectiveness of the two devices. Quoting from that study:
    "Furthermore, our findings indicate that there is no empirical evidence for the
    superiority of any single type of device in the implementation of interval training. This study indicates that there are no noticeable advantages to using PM to increase performance in the average recreational cyclist, suggesting that low cost HR monitor are equally capable as training devices."
    That's a garbage study. 7 interval sessions over a 5 week period in a small sample of recreational cyclists (that hadn't done an interval session in 6 months) isn't revealing.

    Fact is, TRIMP is highly imprecise - runners don't even use it but instead use pace-based methods. More generally, HRM methods are unable to gauge changes in fitness. Even the crummy study you cited used power to assess changes in fitness over time. No one "needs" a powermeter (no one "needs" to train either). But using power provides accurate metrics that aren't available with HRM methods.

  18. #43
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: ibericb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    4,578
    Quote Originally Posted by stevesbike View Post
    That's a garbage study. 7 interval sessions over a 5 week period in a small sample of recreational cyclists (that hadn't done an interval session in 6 months) isn't revealing.

    Fact is, TRIMP is highly imprecise - runners don't even use it but instead use pace-based methods. More generally, HRM methods are unable to gauge changes in fitness. Even the crummy study you cited used power to assess changes in fitness over time. No one "needs" a power meter (no one "needs" to train either). But using power provides accurate metrics that aren't available with HRM methods.
    Don't like that one? Then try this one, done two years prior, with well trained cyclists by a different group. The results were essentially the same. Quoting from that study:

    "The current general perception that prescribing training based only on power is more effective than prescribing training based on heart rate was not supported by the data from this study."

    You can argue all you want, but without data you're whistling in the wind (that's garbage). Got data? Bring it. Until then I'll go with the results of two well designed and controlled studies by knowledgeable and qualified experts in the field (hardly garbage)

    Both studies cited were designed to determine if power or heart rate were superior for training, not for testing fitness. The bottom line is both methods, HRM and power, are equally effective in well structured training programs. The issue is your previous statement that HRM methods don't provide a quantitative measure of training stress, which is completely wrong.

    As far as testing fitness, or the results of training, that is an entirely separate issue. On that point you are correct, heart rate is not a good measure for that (but that wasn't the issue you raised). There are other measures, and direct power measurements is one of the most convenient (and expensive) for use with cycling. Others include time/distance (speed) vs physiological stress (HR).
    "When man invented the bicycle he reached the peak of his attainments."
    -Elizabeth Howard West

    Never use your face as a brake pad.
    -Jake Watson

  19. #44
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: stevesbike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    5,594
    Quote Originally Posted by ibericb View Post
    Don't like that one? Then try this one, done two years prior, with well trained cyclists by a different group. The results were essentially the same. Quoting from that study:

    "The current general perception that prescribing training based only on power is more effective than prescribing training based on heart rate was not supported by the data from this study."

    You can argue all you want, but without data you're whistling in the wind (that's garbage). Got data? Bring it. Until then I'll go with the results of two well designed and controlled studies by knowledgeable and qualified experts in the field (hardly garbage)

    Both studies cited were designed to determine if power or heart rate were superior for training, not for testing fitness. The bottom line is both methods, HRM and power, are equally effective in well structured training programs. The issue is your previous statement that HRM methods don't provide a quantitative measure of training stress, which is completely wrong.

    As far as testing fitness, or the results of training, that is an entirely separate issue. On that point you are correct, heart rate is not a good measure for that (but that wasn't the issue you raised). There are other measures, and direct power measurements is one of the most convenient (and expensive) for use with cycling. Others include time/distance (speed) vs physiological stress (HR).
    In mentioning TRIMP vs. power originally, my point was that TRIMP is an inaccurate method to quantify training load. This is not contested. It's well-known that Bannister type models that use average HR results in inaccuracies due to delays/lags (in both directions). My point about runners is that they don't even use it to estimate training load since pace-based approaches are more accurate.

    The second study is also GIGO - 4 weeks is not revealing in terms of testing the relative effectiveness of an approach. Measuring fitness is not a separate issue - both power and TRIMP require this as input to the model. Power makes this relatively straightforward. It's not with HR. FWIW, the studies you mention don't even try to monitor training load. They just use HR to set training levels/zones. Few people track training load with HR. Power is completely different.

    I first started with HR in the 1980s - my first HRM was wired. I started using power about a decade ago. So, I know how both are used, the metrics, my way around the algorithms underlying tools like the performance manager. For people who do, it's obvious what power-based training provides, not over a few weeks but over years. Instead of googling some studies, you should familiarize yourself with how the tools are actually used - it's why virtually every pro cyclist uses it.

  20. #45
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: ibericb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    4,578
    I'm not disputing the utility of using a power meter. What I am disputing is the lack of utility in using HRM for structured endurance training efforts in cycling that you assert. I have no idea how effective TRIMP is or not - I never played with the concept of assigning points for different loads.

    Many elite endurance athletes use HR methods for training, including runners, XC skiers, rowers, ... In fact cycling is the only sport that can readily use direct power. That doesn't make it any better, just different. The major downside to HR methods is the lag. The major issue with direct power is the need to frequently retest for correlation of output power with the key physiological parameters. For endurance training, both are equally useful when used properly, and as studies published to date have shown neither is superior to the other for training. I appreciate you don't like the results. Cognitive dissonance can be a real b1tch at times. If you have data or equally credible sources with data to dispute those well published results, not just opinions, then bring it. .

    BTW - I used HR for training in the 80's too, both running and cycling. I understand both. Perhaps instead of trying to diminish credible works and those who bring them when they don't comport with your views you could actually bring some real results to support your otherwise unsubstantiated assertions.
    "When man invented the bicycle he reached the peak of his attainments."
    -Elizabeth Howard West

    Never use your face as a brake pad.
    -Jake Watson

  21. #46
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: stevesbike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    5,594
    Quote Originally Posted by ibericb View Post
    I'm not disputing the utility of using a power meter. What I am disputing is the lack of utility in using HRM for structured endurance training efforts in cycling that you assert. I have no idea how effective TRIMP is or not - I never played with the concept of assigning points for different loads.

    Many elite endurance athletes use HR methods for training, including runners, XC skiers, rowers, ... In fact cycling is the only sport that can readily use direct power. That doesn't make it any better, just different. The major downside to HR methods is the lag. The major issue with direct power is the need to frequently retest for correlation of output power with the key physiological parameters. For endurance training, both are equally useful when used properly, and as studies published to date have shown neither is superior to the other for training. I appreciate you don't like the results. Cognitive dissonance can be a real b1tch at times. If you have data or equally credible sources with data to dispute those well published results, not just opinions, then bring it. .

    BTW - I used HR for training in the 80's too, both running and cycling. I understand both. Perhaps instead of trying to diminish credible works and those who bring them when they don't comport with your views you could actually bring some real results to support your otherwise unsubstantiated assertions.
    The fact that you keep referring to studies that compare the efficacy of setting training zones via power vs. HR indicates that you don't really understand how power-based training works. Having a reliable, validated, and accurate method for quantifying training load, integrating it with a reliable measure of fitness (critical power), and being able to track these over time underlies the utility of power-based training. I said HR trimp is not as accurate, doesn't include a measure of fitness, or track accurately changes over time. The fact that you say runners and others still use HR also reveals that you aren't familiar with current training methodology - most runners have abandoned HR-based training and leading tools like training peaks uses non-HR methods for quantifying running training load.

    The short-term studies you refer to don't even touch on this. The reason I said they were GIGO is because they are methodologically uninteresting studies, of dubious validity, and don't even address the above issues. The fact that there aren't good training studies doesn't mean we should follow bad ones. To do the proper study over longer-terms would be impractical, but that's the bane of exercise science.

  22. #47
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: ibericb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    4,578
    Got data, or source?
    "When man invented the bicycle he reached the peak of his attainments."
    -Elizabeth Howard West

    Never use your face as a brake pad.
    -Jake Watson

  23. #48
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    342
    Here we go.....he said, they said!! followed by "got proof."

    Back to the topic- get the power meter if you need direction. Some people can go by feel or HR. This never worked for me. I got a pm and have seen drastic improvement. My training rides are much more focused, which makes my group rides and friendly racing much more pleasant and satisfying.

  24. #49
    Trigger Warning
    Reputation: Local Hero's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    7,355
    I use a PM now but had my best racing season without one. Or an HR monitor. After years of competitive running I am pretty in tune with my body and just rode by feel.

    Then again, I was riding about 35% more that year.

  25. #50
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: spade2you's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    12,084
    I'll have to play with the data if I have time. I'm having really good power this year. I still have the usual struggles of being sick on race day or being stuck working at the hospital. For whatever reasons, my power is up and I'm generally a little faster than usual.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. What to do with power data when power meter is broke?
    By kilgoretrout in forum General Cycling Discussion
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 04-30-2014, 02:50 PM
  2. Best power meter for unequal leg power?
    By russd32 in forum Components, Wrenching
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 03-27-2014, 01:23 PM
  3. Train with power meter = race with power meter?
    By obiwan kenobi in forum Racing, Training, Nutrition, Triathlons
    Replies: 57
    Last Post: 10-06-2010, 01:52 PM
  4. Power Based Training without a Power Meter?
    By Zipp0 in forum Racing, Training, Nutrition, Triathlons
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 01-07-2010, 03:56 PM
  5. Polar power system vs Ibike power meter.
    By the_rydster in forum Racing, Training, Nutrition, Triathlons
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 12-19-2006, 07:52 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •