For the "pedaling technique doesn't matter crowd"

[FrankDay]

Which World Champions? I know a couple they all seem to be training with PMs. That aside my point about the other metrics is that they are a measure of effort, instantaneously and collectively. Why would you need a study to prove that? It's tool that measures the task at hand, without being effected by outside factors. The arguments for other metrics of effort have been done to death. Whether you use some all or none is irrelevant.

If you are doing your 5min efforts at X pace is the determiner for the adaptation. There are those (and their coaches) who like to know exactly what that effort is, there are other that can do this on RPE alone.

Of course I know you know all of this, it's just that you seem to spruik these arguments when the crank debate sours. Do you dislike PMs simply because they effectively disprove powercranks?

What "crank debate sours". There would be no "crank debate" if others didn't raise the issue. This started out as a thread to discuss a study that looked at the relationship between pedaling technique and efficiency. It may be peripherally related to my product but no one seems to want to discuss this paper.

And, I actually don't dislike PM's. If I were a coach I would want my athletes to have one simply because then I would know what they actually did, not what they thought they did. And, I certainly would use a PM for testing purposes.

And I can understand wanting a more "exact" measure. But, despite the fact that I and others can make an argument for a PM being superior to other tools there is simply zero scientific evidence that what the advocates think should be true actually is true.

And, despite the arguments for the power meter, many coaches argue equally hard against the tool, arguing that it is distracting and the most important metric the athlete should be learning is how they feel. As I said, there are many current world champions who do not use a PM. Even the anecdotal evidence for the PM is almost non-existent or conflicting.

As I said, I am only aware of one study that has even looked at the value of the PM as a tool and as I have been told this study found no improvement in outcome using a PM compared to using HR monitor. We will know more when this study is actually published. To claim using a PM as a training or racing tool results in superior results compared to using anything else for the same purpose simply has zero scientific validity. Advocates for a PM who discredit other devices simply because there is no scientific proof of efficacy are hypocrites.

 

[FrankDay]

No better method of assessing a riders ability to meet those demands than power. When teaching a rider to pace themselves for a set distance nothing better than power to determine the appropriate level of overload and specificity of training.

Where is the proof of that statement? You imply an superiority in both assessment and teaching for better outcome. Where is the proof of said superiority? Give it up, you know it doesn't exist.

 

[CoachFergie]

Where is the proof of that statement? You imply an superiority in both assessment and teaching for better outcome. Where is the proof of said superiority? Give it up, you know it doesn't exist.

Nothing better than watts to measure cycling performance! What do you propose is superior?

 

[CoachFergie]

So went for a ride today.

Lap 1:
Duration: 10:00
Work: 81 kJ
TSS: 5.3 (intensity factor 0.578)
Norm Power: 145
VI: 1.07
Pw:HR: -4.68%
Pa:HR: 3.44%
Distance: 4.28 km
Elevation Gain: 0 m
Elevation Loss: 6 m
Grade: -0.2 % (-8 m)
Min Max Avg
Power: 0 431 136 watts
Heart Rate: 125 159 143 bpm
Cadence: 20 99 85 rpm
Speed: 18.8 29.9 25.8 kph
Pace 2:00 3:11 2:19 min/km
Altitude: 56 64 60 m
Crank Torque: 0 57.9 15.3 N-m
Temperature: 17 19 18.1 Celsius

Lap 2:
Duration: 14:44
Work: 212 kJ
TSS: 24 (intensity factor 0.99)
Norm Power: 248
VI: 1.03
Pw:HR: 13.89%
Pa:HR: -6.17%
Distance: 2.338 km
Elevation Gain: 167 m
Elevation Loss: 0 m
Grade: 7.3 % (169 m)
Min Max Avg
Power: 0 374 240 watts
Heart Rate: 148 185 172 bpm
Cadence: 20 86 55 rpm
Speed: 0 22.2 9.5 kph
Pace 2:42 0:00 6:18 min/km
Altitude: 56 225 144 m
Crank Torque: 0 66.6 42.2 N-m
Temperature: 16 17 17.0 Celsius

Lap 3:
Duration: 15:04
Work: 179 kJ
TSS: 16.8 (intensity factor 0.818)
Norm Power: 205
VI: 1.03
Pw:HR: -0.69%
Pa:HR: -5.96%
Distance: 3.473 km
Elevation Gain: 129 m
Elevation Loss: 0 m
Grade: 3.8 % (130 m)
Min Max Avg
Power: 39 397 199 watts
Heart Rate: 150 180 162 bpm
Cadence: 49 91 70 rpm
Speed: 8.2 18.2 13.8 kph
Pace 3:18 7:19 4:21 min/km
Altitude: 225 355 289 m
Crank Torque: 4.2 71.5 27.8 N-m
Temperature: 15 16 15.5 Celsius

Lap 4:
Duration: 8:51
Work: 111 kJ
TSS: 10.9 (intensity factor 0.859)
Norm Power: 216
VI: 1.03
Pw:HR: 4.71%
Pa:HR: -4.38%
Distance: 1.475 km
Elevation Gain: 88 m
Elevation Loss: 0 m
Grade: 6.0 % (88 m)
Min Max Avg
Power: 0 290 210 watts
Heart Rate: 155 181 167 bpm
Cadence: 43 72 58 rpm
Speed: 7 12.5 10.0 kph
Pace 4:48 8:34 5:58 min/km
Altitude: 355 444 400 m
Crank Torque: 0 58.5 34.9 N-m
Temperature: 15 15 15.0 Celsius

Lap 5:
Duration: 19:39
Work: 78 kJ
TSS: 9.1 (intensity factor 0.527)
Norm Power: 132
VI: 1.99
Pw:HR: -1808.29%
Pa:HR: 41.85%
Distance: 10.744 km
Elevation Gain: 0 m
Elevation Loss: 415 m
Grade: -3.9 % (-416 m)
Min Max Avg
Power: 0 534 67 watts
Heart Rate: 102 167 131 bpm
Cadence: 19 211 79 rpm
Speed: 5.1 55.8 32.8 kph
Pace 1:05 11:46 1:50 min/km
Altitude: 28 444 166 m
Crank Torque: 0 110.8 8.2 N-m
Temperature: 14 15 14.3 Celsius

Entire workout (162 watts):
Duration: 1:08:18
Work: 663 kJ
TSS: 73 (intensity factor 0.804)
Norm Power: 202
VI: 1.25
Pw:HR: 29.16%
Pa:HR: -71.57%
Distance: 22.306 km
Elevation Gain: 383 m
Elevation Loss: 418 m
Grade: -0.2 % (-36 m)
Min Max Avg
Power: 0 534 162 watts
Heart Rate: 102 185 153 bpm
Cadence: 19 211 69 rpm
Speed: 0 55.8 19.6 kph
Pace 1:05 0:00 3:03 min/km
Altitude: 28 444 203 m
Crank Torque: 0 110.8 24.4 N-m
Temperature: 14 19 15.8 Celsius

Peak 5s (411 watts):
Duration: 0:05
Work: 2 kJ
TSS: n/a
Norm Power: n/a
VI: n/a
Pw:HR: 28.91%
Pa:HR: -61.03%
Distance: 21 m
Elevation Gain: 0 m
Elevation Loss: 0 m
Grade: -1.9 % (-0 m)
Min Max Avg
Power: 332 534 411 watts
Heart Rate: 113 124 119 bpm
Cadence: 46 71 57 rpm
Speed: 6.1 20.8 14.8 kph
Pace 2:53 9:50 4:03 min/km
Altitude: 33 33 33 m
Crank Torque: 44.6 110.8 72.8 N-m
Temperature: 15 15 15.0 Celsius

Peak 10s (375 watts):
Duration: 0:10
Work: 3 kJ
TSS: n/a
Norm Power: n/a
VI: n/a
Pw:HR: 19.94%
Pa:HR: -83.98%
Distance: 50 m
Elevation Gain: 0 m
Elevation Loss: 0 m
Grade: -2.4 % (-1 m)
Min Max Avg
Power: 254 534 375 watts
Heart Rate: 112 133 123 bpm
Cadence: 46 93 69 rpm
Speed: 5.3 26.5 17.8 kph
Pace 2:16 11:19 3:22 min/km
Altitude: 32 33 33 m
Crank Torque: 0 110.8 53.2 N-m
Temperature: 15 15 15.0 Celsius

Peak 20s (326 watts):
Duration: 0:20
Work: 6 kJ
TSS: n/a
Norm Power: n/a
VI: n/a
Pw:HR: 32.25%
Pa:HR: 10.43%
Distance: 143 m
Elevation Gain: 0 m
Elevation Loss: 0 m
Grade: -1.0 % (-1 m)
Min Max Avg
Power: 106 461 326 watts
Heart Rate: 139 161 150 bpm
Cadence: 74 157 81 rpm
Speed: 24.2 26.9 25.7 kph
Pace 2:14 2:29 2:20 min/km
Altitude: 29 30 29 m
Crank Torque: 6.4 58.7 39.9 N-m
Temperature: 15 15 15.0 Celsius

Peak 30s (314 watts):
Duration: 0:30
Work: 9 kJ
TSS: n/a
Norm Power: n/a
VI: n/a
Pw:HR: 8.54%
Pa:HR: 27.64%
Distance: 93 m
Elevation Gain: 6 m
Elevation Loss: 0 m
Grade: 7.1 % (7 m)
Min Max Avg
Power: 268 374 314 watts
Heart Rate: 149 163 156 bpm
Cadence: 51 74 59 rpm
Speed: 8.9 17.6 11.1 kph
Pace 3:25 6:44 5:24 min/km
Altitude: 56 62 59 m
Crank Torque: 37.6 63.4 51.1 N-m
Temperature: 17 17 17.0 Celsius

Peak 1min (294 watts):
Duration: 1:00
Work: 17 kJ
TSS: n/a
Norm Power: n/a
VI: n/a
Pw:HR: 18.71%
Pa:HR: 26.09%
Distance: 167 m
Elevation Gain: 12 m
Elevation Loss: 0 m
Grade: 8.6 % (14 m)
Min Max Avg
Power: 226 374 294 watts
Heart Rate: 149 174 162 bpm
Cadence: 48 74 55 rpm
Speed: 8.3 17.6 10.0 kph
Pace 3:25 7:14 6:00 min/km
Altitude: 56 70 63 m
Crank Torque: 37.6 63.4 51.3 N-m
Temperature: 17 17 17.0 Celsius

Peak 2min (279 watts):
Duration: 2:00
Work: 33 kJ
TSS: n/a
Norm Power: n/a
VI: n/a
Pw:HR: 14.76%
Pa:HR: 20%
Distance: 299 m
Elevation Gain: 24 m
Elevation Loss: 0 m
Grade: 9.1 % (27 m)
Min Max Avg
Power: 200 363 279 watts
Heart Rate: 159 185 174 bpm
Cadence: 39 62 52 rpm
Speed: 6.4 10.7 9.0 kph
Pace 5:36 9:23 6:41 min/km
Altitude: 102 129 115 m
Crank Torque: 38.2 66.6 51.5 N-m
Temperature: 17 17 17.0 Celsius

Peak 5min (265 watts):
Duration: 5:00
Work: 79 kJ
TSS: 9.4 (intensity factor 1.061)
Norm Power: 266
VI: 1.01
Pw:HR: 9.88%
Pa:HR: -6.56%
Distance: 802 m
Elevation Gain: 61 m
Elevation Loss: 0 m
Grade: 7.9 % (63 m)
Min Max Avg
Power: 33 374 265 watts
Heart Rate: 149 182 172 bpm
Cadence: 43 77 55 rpm
Speed: 7.4 17.6 9.6 kph
Pace 3:25 8:06 6:14 min/km
Altitude: 56 119 88 m
Crank Torque: 5.7 66.6 46.4 N-m
Temperature: 17 17 17.0 Celsius

Peak 10min (250 watts):
Duration: 10:00
Work: 149 kJ
TSS: 17.3 (intensity factor 1.018)
Norm Power: 255
VI: 1.02
Pw:HR: 12.23%
Pa:HR: 10.1%
Distance: 1.539 km
Elevation Gain: 116 m
Elevation Loss: 0 m
Grade: 7.7 % (118 m)
Min Max Avg
Power: 0 374 250 watts
Heart Rate: 148 185 173 bpm
Cadence: 20 82 54 rpm
Speed: 0 22.2 9.2 kph
Pace 2:42 0:00 6:30 min/km
Altitude: 56 174 118 m
Crank Torque: 0 66.6 44.7 N-m
Temperature: 17 17 17.0 Celsius

Peak 20min (232 watts):
Duration: 20:00
Work: 278 kJ
TSS: 30.7 (intensity factor 0.96)
Norm Power: 241
VI: 1.04
Pw:HR: 10.68%
Pa:HR: -20.41%
Distance: 3.515 km
Elevation Gain: 212 m
Elevation Loss: 0 m
Grade: 6.1 % (215 m)
Min Max Avg
Power: 0 397 232 watts
Heart Rate: 137 185 170 bpm
Cadence: 20 95 59 rpm
Speed: 0 26.7 10.6 kph
Pace 2:15 0:00 5:39 min/km
Altitude: 56 270 169 m
Crank Torque: 0 71.5 39.1 N-m
Temperature: 16 17 16.7 Celsius

Peak 30min (219 watts):
Duration: 30:00
Work: 394 kJ
TSS: 41.8 (intensity factor 0.914)
Norm Power: 230
VI: 1.05
Pw:HR: 12.4%
Pa:HR: -51.18%
Distance: 5.858 km
Elevation Gain: 299 m
Elevation Loss: 0 m
Grade: 5.1 % (300 m)
Min Max Avg
Power: 0 397 219 watts
Heart Rate: 143 185 167 bpm
Cadence: 20 95 63 rpm
Speed: 0 26.6 11.8 kph
Pace 2:15 0:00 5:06 min/km
Altitude: 56 356 217 m
Crank Torque: 0 71.5 34.9 N-m
Temperature: 15 17 16.2 Celsius

Peak 60min (167 watts):
Duration: 1:00:00
Work: 600 kJ
TSS: 67.7 (intensity factor 0.823)
Norm Power: 207
VI: 1.24
Pw:HR: 33.57%
Pa:HR: -105.31%
Distance: 18.847 km
Elevation Gain: 386 m
Elevation Loss: 417 m
Grade: -0.2 % (-29 m)
Min Max Avg
Power: 0 534 167 watts
Heart Rate: 102 185 155 bpm
Cadence: 19 211 66 rpm
Speed: 0 55.8 18.9 kph
Pace 1:05 0:00 3:11 min/km
Altitude: 29 444 224 m
Crank Torque: 0 110.8 25.7 N-m
Temperature: 14 18 15.6 Celsius

 

[Tapeworm]

Always an interesting one for anyone who coaches Track Cycling. For the majority of the season we rely on the stopwatch and only at Nationals with electronic timing do we realise just how far out we can be.

The NZ team use timing lights and overlay the watch data with high speed video data and SRM data. The next step is the use of GPS and accelerometers to determine how much extra ground they travel if they drift off the racing line. In the recent Women's World Champs Individual Pursuit final Sarah Hammer spent a lot of time off the racing line in the bends and probably covered more distance than Shanks but clearly had the better power to frontal area to take the Gold.

Sorry Fergie, I was being somewhat facetious in my post there, I know the value in the various tools out there.

I am always interested in Frank's assertion to "prove" the ability of the PM over other metrics, as the one way I think would be used to quantify the results of such a study would be to use... a PM.

And Frank, which world champs were those not using power?

 

[CoachFergie]

So what does all that tell you? What can you compare with others? What can you compare me with me? A year ago, my PB, A week ago, with rides I will do.

Duration: Doesn't tell me much
Work: 663 kJ I assume this is estimated but watts can be converted into kJ's.
TSS: 73 (intensity factor 0.804) Some good stuff right there. TSS goes into my performance manager and I can see if my intensity factor is on the increase, last few rides have been in the .6's.
Norm Power: Rolling 30sec average, nice.
VI: 1.25 More good stuff, if I had been doing a paced drill I would have sucked the big Kahuna.
Pw:HR: 29.16% ****y s**t that I assue Hunter included for the Tri geek market
Pa:HR: -71.57% More meaningless HR s**t that tells me nothing.
Distance: Doesn't tell me much, could all be downhill and have no real intensity
Elevation Gain: Interesting but doesn't tell me anything except if I was preparing for a hilly tour.
Elevation Loss: Blah blah blah
Grade: Blah blah blah
Min Max Avg
Power: 0 534 162 watts Now compared to a year ago this sucks, to PB really sucks, to last week is awesome and hopefully in a weeks time I am 10 watts ahead and in 6 months time I am 50 watts ahead back up at my PB.
Heart Rate: 102 185 153 bpm Tells me what my HR was today, can't be compared with anything, no idea why it was what it was, the hills, the temperature, too much clothing, too little clothing, diet, hydration, stress, nervousness riding past crumbling rockfaces in earthquake city.
Cadence: 19 211 69 rpm. Def did not do 211 rpm although my PB is 250rpm but means little in the scheme of things.
Speed: 0 55.8 19.6 kph. Only tells me what I did but nothing about performance.
Pace 1:05 0:00 3:03 min/km Ditto.
Altitude: 28 444 203 m Ditto
Crank Torque: 0 110.8 24.4 N-m Used to convert to a wattage.
Temperature: 14 19 15.8 Celsius Nothing about performance.

So seriously Frank what is better than wattage?

 

[CoachFergie]

Sorry Fergie, I was being somewhat facetious in my post there, I know the value in the various tools out there.

I am always interested in Frank's assertion to "prove" the ability of the PM over other metrics, as the one way I think would be used to quantify the results of such a study would be to use... a PM.

And Frank, which world champs were those not using power?

Sure that quite a few don't train with power meters and some that do have no idea what they are for and just like the pretty charts.

Actually I think track teams like GB and NZ run the risk of the sport sci tail wagging the high performance riders dog. The Aussies prioritise racing and competitive pressure (of course confirming their progress with SRMs).

 

[oldborn]

Fergie please do not put your examples of specificities for demands, it is so irrelevant, boring, off topic and old.
What are you trying to impress someone?
It is a astonishing "know how" to train someone for 40 km TT and 300 W using PW and shorter intervals.

There is no single evidence tha PM helps, it is most accurate yes. And there is nothing you can do about it. Same thing as PC.

Oh yes, you are really in bad shape.

 

[CoachFergie]

Your anonymous and cowardly opinion has been duly noted.

 

[oldborn]

Your anonymous and cowardly opinion has been duly noted.

Please stay in thread about PC and please do not insult again

Those stories off you about how national teams and riders was so stupid and ignorant before PM, how it s changed training doctrine, and how really we need so little power are beyond any reasonable doubts naive and seems to be like Squirling Dervishes songs.

Again it so old and boring

 

[CoachFergie]

Please stay in thread about PC and please do not insult again

Those stories off you about how national teams and riders was so stupid and ignorant before PM, how it s changed training doctrine, and how really we need so little power are beyond any reasonable doubts naive and seems to be like Squirling Dervishes songs.

Again it so old and boring

Your anonymous and cowardly opinion has been duly noted.

Ha ha well that is the thing it hasn't changed how we train only helped us to quantify training.

Stay tuned for tomorrow's instalment where I will show Frank how my powermeter can be used to compare from day to day and we will have a glimpse of how the accumulation of data can be used in the Performance Manager.

Lessons will continue until Frank is brought up to speed with how wattage is the superior metric for quantifying cycling performance.

 

[oldborn]

Your anonymous and cowardly opinion has been duly noted.

It is hard to be civilize and polite?

Ha ha well that is the thing it hasn't changed how we train only helped us to quantify training.

Quantify training? With NP and TSS terms?

Stay tuned for tomorrow's instalment where I will show Frank how my powermeter can be used to compare from day to day and we will have a glimpse of how the accumulation of data can be used in the Performance Manager.

Please show us on your blog this fenomen instead killing us with useless data comparation.

It is off topic and i am sure that you going to promote SRM very well indeed

Lessons will continue until Frank is brought up to speed with how wattage is the superior metric for quantifying cycling performance.

That is i afraid most, more irrelevant data to this thread and self promotion.

There is not such thing as superior in cycling Dude.
Maybe you could write a new book calling "This book is superior from anything you read before"

Cheers!

 

[CoachFergie]

Your anonymous and cowardly opinion has been duly noted.

I haven't noted you actually contribute anything to the thread. Frank has thrown out the challenge and my response is that he is trying to talk up pedalling technique because it serves his purposes marketing a product that he claims improves technique and performance.

Now while it is easy to disprove his claims with a Powermeter Frank has challenged the validity and reliability of a power meter so it is incumbent on me to reassure the masses that their purchase will benefit their cycling. I am sure that nothing will satisfy Frank because he knows no study has shown an improvement in "power" from training with a Gimmickcrank.

 

[oldborn]

Your anonymous and cowardly opinion has been duly noted.

I haven't noted you actually contribute anything to the thread. Frank has thrown out the challenge and my response is that he is trying to talk up pedalling technique because it serves his purposes marketing a product that he claims improves technique and performance.

Now while it is easy to disprove his claims with a Powermeter Frank has challenged the validity and reliability of a power meter so it is incumbent on me to reassure the masses that their purchase will benefit their cycling. I am sure that nothing will satisfy Frank because he knows no study has shown an improvement in "power" from training with a Gimmickcrank.

Everything has been said. All further is just a "who has a longer **** competition"
You are trying to prove something with "no evidence" against same "no evidence", interesting how things can get blury.

It is not power vs efficiency thread Dude, get on.

Same as discussion between Baron Munchausen and Houdini

As for my contribution to this thread, i point out my opinion very well which is i do not beleive in PC, but there is possibility that PC can help in efficiency.


Your contribution Dude is pure self promotion, throwing a couple of old ideas, irrelevant data, with sugar at the end which we still expect "Your poor shape data" and how to put numbers in spredsheet

Both of you are having interest in this thread, i respect Frank s most he has nothing to hide.

 

[FrankDay]

Nothing better than watts to measure cycling performance! What do you propose is superior?

In racing, since they don't award medals for highest watts and watts is only one component of how fast a rider goes I would suggest that either time over a known course or speed (or, heaven forbid, actual racing results - have you improved more than your peers?) might be a superior metric in measuring cycling PERFORMANCE.

 

[FrankDay]

Sorry Fergie, I was being somewhat facetious in my post there, I know the value in the various tools out there.

I am always interested in Frank's assertion to "prove" the ability of the PM over other metrics, as the one way I think would be used to quantify the results of such a study would be to use... a PM.

And Frank, which world champs were those not using power?

If one is only interested in improving and assessing power, a PM is clearly the best tool. If one is interested in improving and assessing race performance, there is no evidence a PM offers any superiority over other tools.

I can think of three World champs off the top of my head who don't use PM's. Chrissie Wellington, Mirinda Carfrae, Conrad Stoltz (Conrad even told me he used to use one and stopped - prefers perceived exertion). I am blocking on the cycling champs right now.

 

[CoachFergie]

In racing, since they don't award medals for highest watts and watts is only one component of how fast a rider goes I would suggest that either time over a known course or speed (or, heaven forbid, actual racing results - have you improved more than your peers?) might be a superior metric in measuring cycling PERFORMANCE.

Ha ha ha ha is that the best you can do. Clearly don't understand the difference between a performance and a result. Fortunately having been a National Selector I do. In an isolated country like New Zealand we have to assess more than just a result or a time. In a road race sure someone may have the fastest time or hit the line first. Does that mean they are just the big fish in the small pond or have they got what it takes to succeed at International level?

What do you think we do use to assess if a rider actually has what it takes to perform at a higher level? Need a hint... look what is on the front of Nick Nuyens handlebars.

"Might be" Frank, what an amatuer

 

[CoachFergie]

If one is only interested in improving and assessing power, a PM is clearly the best tool. If one is interested in improving and assessing race performance, there is no evidence a PM offers any superiority over other tools.

So after your joke of an answer that it is time and results do you have a superior metric? I would assume that any given Sunday ninety nine times out of a hundred Cancellara would destroy Nuyens. Do we just accept the result of yesterday or do we look at the power of both riders to assess what one did right and the other could do better?

I can think of three World champs off the top of my head who don't use PM's. Chrissie Wellington, Mirinda Carfrae, Conrad Stoltz (Conrad even told me he used to use one and stopped - prefers perceived exertion). I am blocking on the cycling champs right now.

You mean this Conrad Stoltz? From a TT this February...

I was quite disappointed in my ride. Like I said in the previous post, we needed a few more weeks to sort out pacing, position and most importantly more sustained efforts. (as opposed to relatively short intervals) A warm up race or 2 would have helped. I started conservatively, but when I tried to build from 10km, the hammies started catching fire- I turned on 415W avs, but on the way back my hammies were raging and I had to back off the pace till about 25km- losing a lot of time, confidence and combativity. (ie I psyched myself out and gave up. Not the usual Caveman routine)

Come on Frank we myth busted this on Slowtwitch before you were asked to leave!

 

[CoachFergie]

Oldborn back in the blocked file you go. Clearly still just as juvenile as last year.

Will leave you to the voices in your head. "Aldo??? is that you"

 

[oldborn]

I would assume that any given Sunday ninety nine times out of a hundred Cancellara would destroy Nuyens.

If we look just numbers, Cancellara wats kill everyone.

Do we just accept the result of yesterday or do we look at the power of both riders to assess what one did right and the other could do better?

Maybe tactics has something to do not power. You do not have a clue what hapened.
What Cancellara has to do better? Nothing at all
What Nuyens has to do better? Nothing at all again

To many variables.


One more evidence that wats alone do not wins races.

Sorry to mention this, but again totaly off topic Fergie.

 

[oldborn]

Are you really so naive of thinking that Cancellara or his coach would look numbers after RvV today?
One week ahead of PR?
What might they learn?

Maybe that his avg/power was 300wats, and Nuyens has 288w and half of a wheel victory?

Is that 12 wats really tell him something? No

Again wats do not wins races

 

[Tapeworm]

Again wats do not wins races

Actually, I think they do.

With relevant ratios and tactics of course.

 

[CoachFergie]

More Gold...

World champion Mirinda Carfrae uses her CompuTrainer once a week and says the most important feature for her is power measurement.

Originally from: http://ironman.com/training/sponsor...thanks-to-computrainer-training#ixzz1IUtZtgTl

 

[FrankDay]

So after your joke of an answer that it is time and results do you have a superior metric? I would assume that any given Sunday ninety nine times out of a hundred Cancellara would destroy Nuyens. Do we just accept the result of yesterday or do we look at the power of both riders to assess what one did right and the other could do better?



You mean this Conrad Stolz? From a TT this February...



Come on Frank we myth busted this on Slowtwitch before you were asked to leave!

Fergie, you are so much fun. Not sure what the Cancellara/Nuyens thing is about but let's discuss the Stoltz thing. Let's see the quote again

I was quite disappointed in my ride. Like I said in the previous post, we needed a few more weeks to sort out pacing, position and most importantly more sustained efforts. (as opposed to relatively short intervals) A warm up race or 2 would have helped. I started conservatively, but when I tried to build from 10km, the hammies started catching fire- I turned on 415W avs, but on the way back my hammies were raging and I had to back off the pace till about 25km- losing a lot of time, confidence and combativity. (ie I psyched myself out and gave up. Not the usual Caveman routine)

So, it appears Stoltz now has a PM and was able to give you his average watts for the race. But, it also appears he did the race on feel. He listened to his body and when it said back off, he backed off. The numbers on that PM didn't help him during the race at all, it would appear.

Either way, you are in a catch22. You now argue that the fact that Stoltz uses a PM is an argument for the PM. But, you forget, he also uses (and uses a lot) the PC's. You can't say that use is meaningless in one instance and important in the other. Well YOU can (and probably will) but the whole world will notice how silly you look trying to do so.

From a science perspective it doesn't matter who uses or doesn't use a PM. The fact remains, there is simply zero scientific evidence to support better outcome in racing using a PM for either training or racing compared to other effort feedback modalities.

 

[FrankDay]

Back to the Conrad Stoltz quote:

… the hammies started catching fire- I turned on 415W avs, but on the way back my hammies were raging …

I wonder what part of the stroke might engage the "hammies" and what might cause them to "start catching fire"? Why on earth would anyone, let alone a world champion, want to use those muscles when they can't help with the pushing? LOL