# Power meter or not?



## Wicked2006

Many say they work great. But is it worth it the money? I'm a avid rider just no more racing. I do train with race team with strong riders that I can keep up with. And many of them use PM because they race every weekend. So my opinion on the PM is that if anyone uses one you must be serious about riding or racing. To me cycling is still fun and I enjoy it. But a PM might be to much for many of us avid riders. I'm debating on getting one. Not sure I'll ever do it. It's just a thought now. Do any of you have one just for training and not racing? If I was to get me one it would be my training tool for Gran Fondo's and that's about it.


----------



## MMsRepBike

I'll never race. I love power meters. They really help and they changed a lot. They taught me how to pace myself and not blow up. This lead to faster and more efficient riding. I think they are worth the money for sure.


----------



## Srode

I don't and won't race, but have a PM on each of my bikes. Like was said, they are great for pacing on long rides or climbs. Data analysis tools will give you quantitative information about improved performance over a time interval (best 5 minute etc) and give an indication of fatigue / fitness too. Certainly not a requirement but more of a nice luxury. Personally, now that I am used to it I would definitely miss riding without one.


----------



## woodys737

PM's are for anyone. Not just racer types or pro riders. There are many racers I know that have them but, don't understand how to really interpret the data and adjust training accordingly. There are many guys I know who don't have one yet train very effectively. Kind of depends on the user I guess.

I'd recommend reading a book or too on the subject and try and determine if you will be the kind of guy that will use the data to improve or just look at the data and move on. Either way is fine but, if better performance is what you seek, it wouldn't be logical to buy one and ignore the data.


----------



## Wicked2006

woodys737 said:


> PM's are for anyone. Not just racer types or pro riders. There are many racers I know that have them but, don't understand how to really interpret the data and adjust training accordingly. There are many guys I know who don't have one yet train very effectively. Kind of depends on the user I guess.
> 
> I'd recommend reading a book or too on the subject and try and determine if you will be the kind of guy that will use the data to improve or just look at the data and move on. Either way is fine but, if better performance is what you seek, it wouldn't be logical to buy one and ignore the data.


Very good points! It's like a study of your fitness. Or taking a class on PM and data. I'll do some more research as if I'm going to do or not.


----------



## spade2you

No real downside to having a PM. I skimmed the books. I pay attention to a few things. My job is a little too detail oriented for me to get deep into power statistics.


----------



## Jay Strongbow

I'm too lazy and stupid to benefit from one but there's no question that data could help with training and pacing regardless of what you are training for (race or just general riding).
I think most people know themself well enough to know if they'd use or have an interest in the data so if you think you're type to benefit from or simply enjoy knowing power numbers I'd suggest going for it regardless of if you race or not.

I know a few guys who've become slaves to numbers and irritate the heck out of fellow riders by talking stats all the time but other than the slight risk of becoming 'that guy' no reason not to get one if you got the $ and think you'd like to have one.


----------



## TiCoyote

I'm toying with the idea of getting a powercal for $50 and then waiting for a crank based system to show up for under $500


----------



## BelgianHammer

_"....I'm toying with the idea of getting a powercal for $50 and then waiting for a crank based system to show up for under $500..._"


For many years now I've been oogling a Power Meter, but just can't bring myself to buy one. Still, if they ever get a durable crank-based system under $500, well, I would throw caution to the wind and immediately get one. Among other things, I would love to be able to know how many watts per kilogram I can put out before I enter that zone where I am beginning anaerobic-inducing overload. As it is, despite decades or riding/racing, I am always guessing _(usually too optimistically thereby reducing the effectiveness of the workout_) at that threshold when out on a hard ride training day.


----------



## Donn12

If you can spend the coin I would do it. 
I have one on my trainer bike and it is a great tool for intervals. I am not a racer but I do about 100 miles a week and I am much stronger because of focused training. I also have one on my main roadbike and I use it a lot....some for measured intervals and sometimes to regulate my power -either to make sure I don't blow up on a big climb or to stay right at 85% ftp so I can recover but not back off too much.


----------



## SwiftSolo

Donn12 said:


> If you can spend the coin I would do it.
> I have one on my trainer bike and it is a great tool for intervals. I am not a racer but I do about 100 miles a week and I am much stronger because of focused training. I also have one on my main roadbike and I use it a lot....some for ,ensured intervals and sometimes to regulate my power either to make sure I don't blow up on a big cling or to stay right at 85% from so I can recover but not back off too much.


I think you nailed it. 

The power meter is a far more accurate way to meter out your effort on a ride than HR. I notice that many of my friends who don't use PM's start long climbs at unsustainable power levels only to suffer significantly late in those climbs. This is particularly noticeable when doing multiple mountain passes with pauses to regroup at the bottoms. Perceived effort fails miserably in the early stages of second and third climbs where going out too hot comes with an even higher price.

In addition, the PM is a great way to track the dividends of your training during the season.


----------



## Donn12

Forgot to mention - I was not really convinced until i started a computrainer class. One minute in I was sold. I realized that before I would just ride as hard as I could for two hours. Now I maintin a strong zone 2 with plenty of power in reserve.


----------



## looigi

SwiftSolo said:


> ... I notice that many of my friends who don't use PM's start long climbs at unsustainable power levels only to suffer significantly late in those climbs. ...


It is possible to learn not to do that without using a power meter. A power meter might make it easier if you're a slow learner.


----------



## Got Time

Donn12 said:


> Now I maintin a strong zone 2 with plenty of power in reserve.


Hmm, and how does that help you?
Is your training plan telling you to ride 2 hours in zone 2 and previously you rode in zone 3?


----------



## Donn12

when I started the computrainer classes I got a VO2 Max test done so I had my zones defined....before that I was pretty clueless.


----------



## SwiftSolo

Apparently, many experienced riders without power meters are "slow learners" (I wonder if there is a connection?). What frequently happens is that better riders without pm's adjust by backing down mid ride when their HR makes it clear that their pace is too hot. 

I think most knowledgeable folks agree that the fastest way to the summit of a sustained 1 hour climb will be to ride close to your FTP for the entire distance. I've not been with many riders who can do that without a pm unless they are on the wheel of a friend who is a pm user.

To be clear, I have little doubt that many riders astraddle an internet saddle can climb the Stelvio while maintaining exactly 300 watts from bottom to top w/o a power meter.


looigi said:


> It is possible to learn not to do that without using a power meter. A power meter might make it easier if you're a slow learner.


----------



## 3DKiwi

Donn12 said:


> Forgot to mention - I was not really convinced until i started a computrainer class. One minute in I was sold. I realized that before I would just ride as hard as I could for two hours. Now I maintin a strong zone 2 with plenty of power in reserve.


Zone 2 is essentially recovery ride zone / rest between interval zone. Unsurprising you have plenty in reserve.

If you're not doing so already you should be following a training plan that includes workout specific cadences and required power outputs. You'll get much better results when you have a focussed training plan with the emphasis on quality not quantity.


----------



## looigi

SwiftSolo said:


> ...To be clear, I have little doubt that many riders astraddle an internet saddle can climb the Stelvio while maintaining exactly 300 watts from bottom to top w/o a power meter.


I couldn't as my ftp is 220W, and the only times I climbed the Stelvio was astride a motorcycle capable of ~95kW but of course averaging much less on that climb. However, in all seriousness, I do believe it's pretty easy to learn not to overcook it at the bottom of climb without using a power meter (which I and many others managed years before the advent of PMs), but do agree that a PM makes it easier yet. And learning to do it without a PM is as skill that some find rewarding in itself. PMs are especially helpful when riding solo against the clock, as in TTs or going for Strava KOMs.


----------



## Drew Eckhardt

Wicked2006 said:


> Many say they work great. But is it worth it the money?


Absolutely provided you're riding at least 1.5 hours at least 4 days a week (that's about the minimum for decent cycling fitness) and a structured training program won't detract from your enjoyment.

You can implement a structured training plan with heart rate or even rated perceived exertion, although power is more effective because it maximizes time stressing systems of interest. It doesn't lag like heart rate or drift upwards so you can pace intervals better. It differentiates between when it feels hard because it is, it feels hard because you're fatigued but can dig deeper, and it feels hard but you can't do more and should stop since you're getting limited benefit but increasing fatigue which will limit workouts a day or two in the future. Power tells you when your current program isn't working so you can make adjustments while heart rate doesn't - starting the season I averaged the same 171 heart rate on my first 10 minute interval in a set at 200W versus 240W now, and if that's not over 250 in my next mesocycle I'll make adjustments.

At $150 for a used wired PowerTap and new power meters (4iii) starting at $400 the price is no longer interesting compared to what many of us already spend on cycling. The incremental cost may even be negative - I have less money in my alloy PowerTap wheelset than co-workers do aluminum setups without power.



> Do any of you have one just for training and not racing? If I was to get me one it would be my training tool for Gran Fondo's and that's about it.


Sure. Together with a structured training program that increased my power to weight ratio from under 1.9 W/kg to over 3.5, as in I can climbs hills in a 50 ring where I used to need a 30.


----------



## Drew Eckhardt

BelgianHammer said:


> _"....I'm toying with the idea of getting a powercal for $50 and then waiting for a crank based system to show up for under $500..._"
> 
> Still, if they ever get a durable crank-based system under $500, well, I would throw caution to the wind and immediately get one.


4iiii single-sided crank arm units are $400.


----------



## spade2you

looigi said:


> I couldn't as my ftp is 220W, and the only times I climbed the Stelvio was astride a motorcycle capable of ~95kW but of course averaging much less on that climb. However, in all seriousness, I do believe it's pretty easy to learn not to overcook it at the bottom of climb without using a power meter (which I and many others managed years before the advent of PMs), but do agree that a PM makes it easier yet. And learning to do it without a PM is as skill that some find rewarding in itself. PMs are especially helpful when riding solo against the clock, as in TTs or going for Strava KOMs.


I gained a heck of a lot of speed when I started using a PM on my TT bike and pacing myself right.


----------



## Got Time

*structured training plan*

Did you create that "structured training plan" yourself or did you get it from somewhere?
How did you create/choose it?


----------



## BikeLayne

To expensive for me. Also If it makes my bike heavier I do no want it. The thing weighs enough already.


----------



## deviousalex

SwiftSolo said:


> The power meter is a far more accurate way to meter out your effort on a ride than HR. I notice that many of my friends who don't use PM's start long climbs at unsustainable power levels only to suffer significantly late in those climbs. This is particularly noticeable when doing multiple mountain passes with pauses to regroup at the bottoms.


You'd be surprised that poeple with power meters do it too. I was riding with a guy I know and he said he's going for a PR on this ~20 minute climb. We hit the bottom and he attacks it way way over his threshold. When he cracks I go "why did you attack the bottom?". His reply, "I wanted to get my HR up."

Having a power meter is one thing, but it means you still need to learn how to pace yourself. Clearly it does help, but it's not idiot proof.


----------



## spade2you

BikeLayne said:


> To expensive for me. Also If it makes my bike heavier I do no want it. The thing weighs enough already.


Additional weight from a PM is minimal.


----------



## deviousalex

BikeLayne said:


> 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.


----------



## Donn12

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.


----------



## Donn12

Got Time said:


> 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


----------



## TiCoyote

Drew Eckhardt said:


> 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.


----------



## Srode

Donn12 said:


> very high short intervals are relatively easy for me


You probably aren't doing them right then!


----------



## the_gormandizer

Srode said:


> 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!


----------



## BelgianHammer

^+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*_"


----------



## TricrossRich

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.


----------



## Donn12

TricrossRich said:


> 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!


----------



## spade2you

Donn12 said:


> 212 to 270 is a nice gain!


Very much so. Makes me wish I had a PM when I first started out.


----------



## ziscwg

TricrossRich said:


> 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.


----------



## joeinchi

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.


----------



## stevesbike

joeinchi said:


> 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.
> 
> View attachment 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.


----------



## ibericb

stevesbike said:


> 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."_


----------



## steelbikerider

Stages may still have DA 7900 power meters for $449. I just installed mine last night.


----------



## dcb

steelbikerider said:


> 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.


----------



## stevesbike

ibericb said:


> 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.


----------



## ibericb

stevesbike said:


> 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).


----------



## stevesbike

ibericb said:


> 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.


----------



## ibericb

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.


----------



## stevesbike

ibericb said:


> 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.


----------



## ibericb

Got data, or source?


----------



## 2Slo4U

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.


----------



## Local Hero

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.


----------



## spade2you

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.


----------



## stevesbike

Local Hero said:


> 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.


I know a former world tour rider, multiple national champion etc., who just "winged" it and never had a structured training program. No one is saying it's impossible to be successful without a power meter, but people who are successful without one might still benefit (and have been even better). Greg Lemond didn't have one, and now thinks he was chronically over-training, which shortened his career. That's the sort of mistake a careful power-based approach could also help avoid. 

RE iberich, who for whatever reason thinks controlled studies are revealing in this area (hint, they aren't as the gap between the lab and the real world in cycling is still enormous), the only source that really matters is the fact that virtually every serious coach and serious racer has adopted a power-based approach because they see its practical value. I'm guessing you spend more time googling research papers than training/racing/coaching.


----------



## ziscwg

spade2you said:


> 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.


Since I got my PM, I appeared to have bad days on my targeted race days or organized rides. I felt like I was dying half the time and did not want to even look at my numbers. Yet, there they were........ PR after PR. At times, I think it was a waste of money. Then, I get some big climb PR or my buddy that normally drops me says, "oh, you are right here."


----------



## spade2you

ziscwg said:


> Since I got my PM, I appeared to have bad days on my targeted race days or organized rides. I felt like I was dying half the time and did not want to even look at my numbers. Yet, there they were........ PR after PR. At times, I think it was a waste of money. Then, I get some big climb PR or my buddy that normally drops me says, "oh, you are right here."


I think we've all peaked early (that's what SHE said!) or had really bad days on race day. 

I've been able to have some nice peaks during my TTs so far. (knocks on wood) I tend to get a cold, which turns into a long sinus infection, which often turns into bronchitis.

On my way to the last TT, I kept setting a best 20 minute power and ended up doing my best power on race day for medium length TT.


----------



## antihero77

Any good reads for learning how to train with a power meter?


----------



## 2Slo4U

antihero77 said:


> Any good reads for learning how to train with a power meter?


Training and Racing with a Power Meter by Hunter Allen and Andrew Coggan is the one I see recommended time and time again. I read it and it really helped me understand the nuances of a power meter and where I needed to spend my time....


----------



## ziscwg

antihero77 said:


> Any good reads for learning how to train with a power meter?





2Slo4U said:


> *Training and Racing with a Power Meter by Hunter Allen and Andrew Coggan* is the one I see recommended time and time again. I read it and it really helped me understand the nuances of a power meter and where I needed to spend my time....


This one.


----------



## Alex_Simmons/RST

stevesbike said:


> Greg Lemond didn't have one,


Lemond was one of the first pros to use a power meter.

Here he is using an SRM:









and this one showing the crankset as well during 1993 Giro:


----------



## stevesbike

Alex_Simmons/RST said:


> Lemond was one of the first pros to use a power meter.
> 
> Here he is using an SRM:
> 
> View attachment 307048
> 
> 
> and this one showing the crankset as well during 1993 Giro:
> 
> View attachment 307049


yes, I know he had one late in his career, but he blamed his early retirement on chronic over-training, which also hampered his comeback after his hunting accident and required surgery. Having used his first book on training during my own racing career, and trained a few times with Lemond, I'm not surprised in retrospect given both how demanding his training program was and the number of days he raced/year.


----------

