The Powermeter Thread

[CoachFergie]

Yes, everything is questionable to you.

Yup, that is why we measure stuff. We make sure our measures are accurate. We make sure our measures are valid. We make sure our measures are reliable. So we don't make claims we can't support.

 

[FrankDay]

Yup, that is why we measure stuff. We make sure our measures are accurate. We make sure our measures are valid. We make sure our measures are reliable. So we don't make claims we can't support.

So, let me get this straight. You are telling us that we can trust anything that you measure because, well because you are the one doing the measuring and you tell us it is good? Whereas, anyone else can't be trusted because there are just so many ways they might go wrong? This is especially true if the numbers don't agree with your bias, I suppose.

Got it.

Now, if only all those "accurate, valid and reliable" measurements could be shown to actually help make your riders faster. All that trouble for what purpose?

 

[CoachFergie]

So, let me get this straight. You are telling us that we can trust anything that you measure because, well because you are the one doing the measuring and you tell us it is good? Whereas, anyone else can't be trusted because there are just so many ways they might go wrong? This is especially true if the numbers don't agree with your bias, I suppose.

Got it.

Now, if only all those "accurate, valid and reliable" measurements could be shown to actually help make your riders faster. All that trouble for what purpose?

Ha ha yeah sure Frank.

My bias is testing and questioning everything.

Yours is a Gimmickcrank is the only way to improve performance.

Which is more plausible?

 

[FrankDay]

Yours is a Gimmickcrank is the only way to improve performance.

Really? Where have you gotten that idea?

Anyhow, this is a powermeter thread. the above comment is off-topic.

 

[CoachFergie]

Really? Where have you gotten that idea?

Anyhow, this is a powermeter thread. the above comment is off-topic.

You have made several claims about your product. Given that a power meter is the best way to measure a change in physiological performance in cycling it is quite relevant when testing between different training methods, pieces of equipment, nutrition products and practices etc.

Given that you clearly don't understand some pretty basic power meter principles I suggest you at least read this and stop making a fool of yourself.

http://home.trainingpeaks.com/artic...-intensity-factor,-training-stress-score.aspx

 

[FrankDay]

You have made several claims about your product. Given that a power meter is the best way to measure a change in physiological performance in cycling it is quite relevant when testing between different training methods, pieces of equipment, nutrition products and practices etc.

Given that you clearly don't understand some pretty basic power meter principles I suggest you at least read this and stop making a fool of yourself.

http://home.trainingpeaks.com/artic...-intensity-factor,-training-stress-score.aspx

LOL. What is irrefutable regarding my claims about my product is that the last 4 Olympic road racing champions have trained on the product and in Kona just this year the woman who set a new overall course record and a new run course record, and the male and female with the fastest amateur bike splits - the male of these two also happened to have the 5th fastest overall bike split when including the pros and the female of the two had the fastest of all the women (including the pros) by about 5 minutes all have or currently train on the product.

But, because you don't understand why these people seem to think this product works for them you think it your duty to make sure that no one else even consider the possibility that it might work for them. You would rather they gather numbers to prove to themselves how inferior they are rather than actually do something about it. Even on threads that have nothing to do with my product per se.

 

[CoachFergie]

LOL. What is irrefutable regarding my claims about my product is that the last 4 Olympic road racing champions have trained on the product and in Kona just this year the woman who set a new overall course record and a new run course record, and the male and female with the fastest amateur bike splits - the male of these two also happened to have the 5th fastest overall bike split when including the pros and the female of the two had the fastest of all the women (including the pros) by about 5 minutes all have or currently train on the product.

All meaningless claims. Without measurement you have no way of proving if they had any influence on performance.

But, because you don't understand why these people seem to think this product works for them you think it your duty to make sure that no one else even consider the possibility that it might work for them.

Why think when there is plenty of data showing no influence on performance using a power meter and if we are going to play the anecdote game them why is so much slower compared to Tony Martin in TT's this year after you claim Cadel Evans told him he HAS to get on Gimmickcranks!

You would rather they gather numbers to prove to themselves how inferior they are rather than actually do something about it. Even on threads that have nothing to do with my product per se.

Am I doing something about it. I am telling people if they want to measure their fitness to see where they are at in relation to their goals or if they want to test their training or equipment the power meter is the best way so far to do this.

 

[FrankDay]

It doesn't surprise me that an IM athlete may not know their FTP, some quite possibly are not doing a lot of training at that level, nor specifically test for it.

Let's presume Sam doesn't have a clue what his FTP is. How do you think this hurt him?

 

[CoachFergie]

Let's presume Sam doesn't have a clue what his FTP is. How do you think this hurt him?

Another Strawman.

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Let's presume Sam doesn't have a clue what his FTP is. How do you think this hurt him?

Not sure I understand the premise of the question.

I wasn't aware Sam was hurt by any actual or mythical ignorance of his FTP, or that I or anyone else suggested he had been.

 

[FrankDay]

Not sure I understand the premise of the question.

I wasn't aware Sam was hurt by any actual or mythical ignorance of his FTP, or that I or anyone else suggested he had been.

You made the comment that you would be surprised if any triathlete knew their FTP. What was the purpose of making that statement? If there is no downside to not knowing one's FTP what is the upside of knowing it?

 

[CoachFergie]

You made the comment that you would be surprised if any triathlete knew their FTP. What was the purpose of making that statement? If there is no downside to not knowing one's FTP what is the upside of knowing it?

Another strawman.

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

You made the comment that you would be surprised if any triathlete knew their FTP. What was the purpose of making that statement? If there is no downside to not knowing one's FTP what is the upside of knowing it?

No, I didn't say that at all. This is what I said:

It doesn't surprise me that an IM athlete may not know their FTP, some quite possibly are not doing a lot of training at that level, nor specifically test for it.

They may construct a pacing strategy based on their long duration power, e.g. doing 100+ km TT efforts to base their training and race pace strategy on.

Specificity and all that jazz.

 

[FrankDay]

No, I didn't say that at all. This is what I said:

Originally Posted by Alex Simmons/RST View Post
It doesn't surprise me that an IM athlete may not know their FTP, some quite possibly are not doing a lot of training at that level, nor specifically test for it.

They may construct a pacing strategy based on their long duration power, e.g. doing 100+ km TT efforts to base their training and race pace strategy on.

Specificity and all that jazz.

Thanks for the "clarification". So, let me see if I understand it right after the clarification. I take it your feeling has to do with triathletes and specificity. I take it you think that Ironman athletes are always doing 5-6 hour training rides and never doing shorter length, higher effort rides such that it is difficult for them to assess their FTP, is that correct?

While I don't think most triathletes train in such a manner, even if that were the case, why would that interfere with their knowing their FTP. Don't people use their FTP to predict what they can sustain for 5 hours? Why can't it work backwards and use their 5 hour power to predict their 1 hour power? Is going that way less accurate?

But, back to the original question, does knowing the FTP (or any fitness/power metric) help the athlete in any way? Does not knowing the FTP (or any other fitness/power metric) hurt the athlete in any way? According to Coach Fergie using a power meter is the only reliable way (or, at least, the best) to assess fitness. I can see how such information might be useful if one is trying to compare athletes but the usefulness of this information in helping the individual athlete is lost on me. Because there is no power data it would seem that Coach Fergie would be afraid to hazard a guess as to the fitness or capabilities of Stefanie Adam because she doesn't train or race with a power meter because there are no power numbers to compare to last week, month, or year or to anyone else. I wonder how she knows if she is any good or not? What could she possibly use to pace herself? How much better would she be if she used a power meter?

 

[CoachFergie]

Another strawman. Measuring performance or fitness does improve performance.

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Thanks for the "clarification". So, let me see if I understand it right after the clarification. I take it your feeling has to do with triathletes and specificity. I take it you think that Ironman athletes are always doing 5-6 hour training rides and never doing shorter length, higher effort rides such that it is difficult for them to assess their FTP, is that correct?

No, I did not say that either.

While I don't think most triathletes train in such a manner, even if that were the case, why would that interfere with their knowing their FTP.

Well since I never said they do, I'm not suggesting it would.

Frank, I said I would not be surprised if such an athlete didn't (because quite clearly some don't). I did not however say that would be the case for everyone.

Your implication I have said otherwise, along with attempts to put words in my mouth, is disingenuous.

Don't people use their FTP to predict what they can sustain for 5 hours? Why can't it work backwards and use their 5 hour power to predict their 1 hour power? Is going that way less accurate?

Pithy Power Proverb:
"The best predictor of performance is performance itself." - Andy Coggan

It should be pretty obvious that the further you move from one known point on the mean maximal power curve, the estimation error is likely to increase, be it with respect to answering one of the following questions:
- how long could I sustain X% of FTP (or any specific power value, such as MAP or 20-min max or whatever you like)
- what % of FTP (or any specific power value) could I sustain for Y duration?

Now we also know that at longer durations, the MMP curve is pretty flat, so while there will be an error, it's typically within a certain range.

So yes, one can use one power-duration value and estimate another. Indeed earlier in this thread I indicated on the basis of the IM power file shown being accurate, what I thought this rider's FTP was more likely to be. It's a reasonable guesstimate. If such a rider wanted to know, then of course better protocols exist to do that.

As for IM specifically, well we also need to keep in mind that a rider isn't racing at their mean maximal power for the duration.

If a rider does happen to know their FTP, then we know empirically (not scientifically) there is a typical range of TSS for an IM bike leg that is often associated with good IM performance for that athlete (i.e. a good run).

But, back to the original question, does knowing the FTP (or any fitness/power metric) help the athlete in any way? Does not knowing the FTP (or any other fitness/power metric) hurt the athlete in any way? According to Coach Fergie using a power meter is the only reliable way (or, at least, the best) to assess fitness. I can see how such information might be useful if one is trying to compare athletes but the usefulness of this information in helping the individual athlete is lost on me. Because there is no power data it would seem that Coach Fergie would be afraid to hazard a guess as to the fitness or capabilities of Stefanie Adam because she doesn't train or race with a power meter because there are no power numbers to compare to last week, month, or year or to anyone else. I wonder how she knows if she is any good or not? What could she possibly use to pace herself? How much better would she be if she used a power meter?

Measuring the progress of an athlete's ability to sustain power over durations of relevance helps in many ways. If the training is not helping them improve, then one should consider changing the training.

Power is an excellent means to do this because of its objectiveness as an indicator. If you choose to use other means, that's fine but keep in mind the more subjective an indicator you use, and/or the more an indicator is subject to external and uncontrollable factors, the more likely you'll gain a false impression of how you are actually tracking, and as a result increase the chances of making poor decisions about training.

As for pacing, power is not the only tool one can use, and quite clearly a rider's perceptions of effort level is also an effective tool. Indeed the combination of power and perceived exertion is an excellent mix.

Pithy Power Proverb:
"Power calibrates PE, PE modulates power." - Charles Howe

 

[FrankDay]

No, I did not say that either.



Well since I never said they do, I'm not suggesting it would.

Frank, I said I would not be surprised if such an athlete didn't (because quite clearly some don't). I did not however say that would be the case for everyone.

Your implication I have said otherwise, along with attempts to put words in my mouth, is disingenuous.

Nothing disingenuous. I was just trying to understand why you posted what you posted. What is disingenuous, me thinks, is you taking a page out of the Fergie/Coggin method of "discussion" by simply ignoring questions or requests for clarification.

Pithy Power Proverb:
"The best predictor of performance is performance itself." - Andy Coggan

Ugh, what a stupid "proverb". Prediction involves forecasting the future. What just happened is not a predictor of performance.

It should be pretty obvious that the further you move from one known point on the mean maximal power curve, the estimation error is likely to increase, be it with respect to answering one of the following questions:
- how long could I sustain X% of FTP (or any specific power value, such as MAP or 20-min max or whatever you like)
- what % of FTP (or any specific power value) could I sustain for Y duration?

I guess that is all good but what does it mean to all those who own power meters and are trying to use them to help them get better? Training Peaks gathers all this information and puts it out and the average person thinks it all means something. Yet, what does it mean if the FTP they see when they go to training peaks bears no relationship to what their real FTP is? How does the average person know if the FTP they see when they go to training peaks is close to accurate or not? You say you are not surprised that some triathletes clearly do not know this number? What makes cyclists any better than triathletes? Wouldn't our time on these forums be better spent trying to address weaknesses in the system than pretending it is better than it is?

Now we also know that at longer durations, the MMP curve is pretty flat, so while there will be an error, it's typically within a certain range.

It seems to me that one of the benefits of gathering power data at an event such a Ironman is what might be learned from this. Ironman is a wonderful laboratory because there are a lot of people doing the same thing on the same day at race intensity. TP could be data mining power data like google data mines personal data. There are two groups that should be looked at, the large group in the middle and the outliers. The large group in the middle tells us what the average person does. The outliers (like Sam Gyde, who rode a 4:30 at an IF of 0.9 and then ran a 3 hr marathon) may point out weaknesses in the system (calculation of FTP) or point out where improvement lie (how to train to ride at a higher IF and still run well).

So yes, one can use one power-duration value and estimate another. Indeed earlier in this thread I indicated on the basis of the IM power file shown being accurate, what I thought this rider's FTP was more likely to be. It's a reasonable guesstimate. If such a rider wanted to know, then of course better protocols exist to do that.

Your problem here, as I see it, is your lack of curiosity. You just assume that his FTP is wrong rather than wondering if we are missing something that might lead to improvement.

As for IM specifically, well we also need to keep in mind that a rider isn't racing at their mean maximal power for the duration.

What does this mean?

If a rider does happen to know their FTP, then we know empirically (not scientifically) there is a typical range of TSS for an IM bike leg that is often associated with good IM performance for that athlete (i.e. a good run).

As I said, this is where analyzing the outliers can be useful. What sets them apart? Can what they do be applied to others to improve results? Of course, such an analysis won't work for Coach Fergie, who doesn't seem to be able to do anything until it has been proven effective. But, not all are of the same ilk, which is where advances come from.

Measuring the progress of an athlete's ability to sustain power over durations of relevance helps in many ways. If the training is not helping them improve, then one should consider changing the training.

Duh.

Power is an excellent means to do this because of its objectiveness as an indicator. If you choose to use other means, that's fine but keep in mind the more subjective an indicator you use, and/or the more an indicator is subject to external and uncontrollable factors, the more likely you'll gain a false impression of how you are actually tracking, and as a result increase the chances of making poor decisions about training.

The problem is there are other objective measures also, such as repeated and regular time-trials on the same course and similar conditions. That is how runners do it. The problem with using power as the prime measure is it doesn't take into account all of the variables that affect performance, most especially aerodynamics. What if a rider sees improved power metrics because of making subtle changes in position that adversely affect aerodynamics. Using power as your metric would give the athlete a false indication that they are improving.

As for pacing, power is not the only tool one can use, and quite clearly a rider's perceptions of effort level is also an effective tool. Indeed the combination of power and perceived exertion is an excellent mix.

Pithy Power Proverb:
"Power calibrates PE, PE modulates power." - Charles Howe

What a dumb "proverb". Power does not calibrate PE, the only thing that calibrates PE is experience. Power, when combined with PE (and HR) does have the potential to inform the athlete as to whether they are having a good day or bad day.

The one advantage that I see power actually having involves informing a coach as to whether the athlete is actually doing the workouts that have been prescribed. This could be a motivator for some athletes. (Edit: A second advantage might be to the inexperienced athlete who has little basis for understanding how to apply PE to race effort.) Of course, there is little evidence either of these potential advantages count for much.

 

[CoachFergie]

Oh look, an entire man made of straw.

Stop trolling Frank.

Read Racing and Training with a Power Meter. All will be explained.

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Nothing disingenuous. I was just trying to understand why you posted what you posted. What is disingenuous, me thinks, is you taking a page out of the Fergie/Coggin method of "discussion" by simply ignoring questions or requests for clarification.

I have provide clear and concise clarification, and have consistently pointed out your misinterpretation, be it deliberate or otherwise.

Ugh, what a stupid "proverb". Prediction involves forecasting the future. What just happened is not a predictor of performance.

So if we don't use what's actually happened as a guide to the future, then what would we use? Psychics?

I guess that is all good but what does it mean to all those who own power meters and are trying to use them to help them get better? Training Peaks gathers all this information and puts it out and the average person thinks it all means something. Yet, what does it mean if the FTP they see when they go to training peaks bears no relationship to what their real FTP is? How does the average person know if the FTP they see when they go to training peaks is close to accurate or not?

There is a wealth of such information freely available (including from the people that provide the software) that deal with these and other questions on the effective use of information and how to interpret the data. If you and others choose not to read and learn, that's not my problem.

Much of it is consolidated into an inexpensive book that Fergie referred to, if that makes it easier to locate.

You say you are not surprised that some triathletes clearly do not know this number? What makes cyclists any better than triathletes?

I never said anything about cyclist's knowledge or made any comment about relative levels of knowledge between cyclists and triathletes. That's just another example of your strawman style of argument. It's a pity you don't just read what was actually written, instead of making **** up.

Wouldn't our time on these forums be better spent trying to address weaknesses in the system than pretending it is better than it is?

I can think of many far more useful things to do on a forum, but even then this is a loaded question of the "wouldn't it be better if you stopped beating your wife?" variety.

It seems to me that one of the benefits of gathering power data at an event such a Ironman is what might be learned from this. Ironman is a wonderful laboratory because there are a lot of people doing the same thing on the same day at race intensity. TP could be data mining power data like google data mines personal data. There are two groups that should be looked at, the large group in the middle and the outliers. The large group in the middle tells us what the average person does. The outliers (like Sam Gyde, who rode a 4:30 at an IF of 0.9 and then ran a 3 hr marathon) may point out weaknesses in the system (calculation of FTP) or point out where improvement lie (how to train to ride at a higher IF and still run well).

Sure, having lots of data makes for some interesting analysis, although I don't see what's so particularly lab-like of Kona, given you just told me a few posts earlier how unique the course was and how variable the conditions are for the athletes, both over the course of the day and from year to year. It's just another IM event amongst dozens of others, let alone all the cycling events one could also use for such a purpose.

Your problem here, as I see it, is your lack of curiosity. You just assume that his FTP is wrong rather than wondering if we are missing something that might lead to improvement.What does this mean?As I said, this is where analyzing the outliers can be useful. What sets them apart? Can what they do be applied to others to improve results?

How on earth can you know about my level of curiosity? You make so many false assumptions and logical fallacies there is little point attempting a sensible discussion.

Of course, such an analysis won't work for Coach Fergie, who doesn't seem to be able to do anything until it has been proven effective. But, not all are of the same ilk, which is where advances come from.Duh.

Then prove them. Simple.

Problem is, as you have shown us time and again, you hang onto ideas even when they have been proven not to work, let alone not proven to work.

The problem is there are other objective measures also, such as repeated and regular time-trials on the same course and similar conditions. That is how runners do it. The problem with using power as the prime measure is it doesn't take into account all of the variables that affect performance, most especially aerodynamics. What if a rider sees improved power metrics because of making subtle changes in position that adversely affect aerodynamics. Using power as your metric would give the athlete a false indication that they are improving.

Wow, so much wrong with that it's hard to know where to start. It's clear physics is not your strong point.

The mere fact they are measuring power and speed gives them the opportunity to know the impact of a change on both physiological performance (e.g. power output) and physical performance (e.g. aerodynamics).

Runners use pace as a proxy for power, since at an athletics track the ground is flat, the course uses all directions on a lap and the speeds are lower meaning the relationship between power and pace is far more consistent than it will ever by for a cyclist. It's not perfect of course, but more reliable than pace ever will be for a bike rider.

You are far more likely to make bad assumptions about cycling performance changes from pace data alone than you are from having pace and power data.

What a dumb "proverb". Power does not calibrate PE, the only thing that calibrates PE is experience. Power, when combined with PE (and HR) does have the potential to inform the athlete as to whether they are having a good day or bad day.

IOW you agree with it.

The one advantage that I see power actually having involves informing a coach as to whether the athlete is actually doing the workouts that have been prescribed. This could be a motivator for some athletes. (Edit: A second advantage might be to the inexperienced athlete who has little basis for understanding how to apply PE to race effort.) Of course, there is little evidence either of these potential advantages count for much.

You found it in your heart to think of one, maybe two advantages of having power data. And you accuse me of lacking curiosity!

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Quote:

As for IM specifically, well we also need to keep in mind that a rider isn't racing at their mean maximal power for the duration.

What does this mean?

Their power output is less than what they would typically do if they only had to ride the bike leg and not pace themselves such that they could run a competitive marathon afterwards.

 

[FrankDay]

I have provide clear and concise clarification, and have consistently pointed out your misinterpretation, be it deliberate or otherwise.

I must have missed it. All I saw was your re-posting the original post.

So if we don't use what's actually happened as a guide to the future, then what would we use? Psychics?

The "proverb" didn't say that "past performance" was the best predictor. To me, what that "proverb" really said, if read literally, is it is impossible to predict a performance with any reliability. That is demonstrably not true. If I were to give you a power number how close can you get to predicting a 40 km tt performance. 180 watts?

There is a wealth of such information freely available (including from the people that provide the software) that deal with these and other questions on the effective use of information and how to interpret the data. If you and others choose not to read and learn, that's not my problem.

Much of it is consolidated into an inexpensive book that Fergie referred to, if that makes it easier to locate.

Cool. All some of us has asked for is some scientific support for the principles put forth in this book and that they represent an improvement over what can be done without one.

I never said anything about cyclist's knowledge or made any comment about relative levels of knowledge between cyclists and triathletes. That's just another example of your strawman style of argument. It's a pity you don't just read what was actually written, instead of making **** up.

You were the one who mentioned, specifically, the triathlete. I was simply trying to clarify why you wrote what you did?

I can think of many far more useful things to do on a forum, but even then this is a loaded question of the "wouldn't it be better if you stopped beating your wife?" variety.

Really? Asking if it wouldn't be more useful to address what we don't know rather than going around patting ourselves on the back for what we think we do know is like asking someone if they have stopped beating their wife?

Sure, having lots of data makes for some interesting analysis, although I don't see what's so particularly lab-like of Kona, given you just told me a few posts earlier how unique the course was and how variable the conditions are for the athletes, both over the course of the day and from year to year. It's just another IM event amongst dozens of others, let alone all the cycling events one could also use for such a purpose.

You don't see what is particularly "lab like" about Kona where 34% of the bikes had power meters and everyone of them were "peaked" for racing time-trial fashion on the same day in, essentially, the same conditions? Researchers drool over that kind of data, especially if it could be combined with all the other information that could probably be obtained (like training logs from TP's) and questionaires. But, instead the really interesting stuff is ignored to put out the usual BS in puff pieces.

How on earth can you know about my level of curiosity? You make so many false assumptions and logical fallacies there is little point attempting a sensible discussion.

It is easy to know about your level of curiosity, at least about this issue because you broadcast it to the world with each post.

Then prove them. Simple.

Problem is, as you have shown us time and again, you hang onto ideas even when they have been proven not to work, let alone not proven to work.

LOL. Proven not to work by whom? Certainly not Sam and Stefanie.

Wow, so much wrong with that it's hard to know where to start. It's clear physics is not your strong point.

The mere fact they are measuring power and speed gives them the opportunity to know the impact of a change on both physiological performance (e.g. power output) and physical performance (e.g. aerodynamics).

Well, I would agree that power meters do allow for the ability to measure both power and aerodynamics. The problem is that doing so is so complex that my guess is that well under 1% of the people who actually own power meters have ever done so and then we don't know if any of them ever followed up to see if they could improve their aerodynamics. It has simply never been shown that the potential of the device has ever been seen in the real world. People who use power meters regularly continue to lose to those who have never touched one.

Runners use pace as a proxy for power, since at an athletics track the ground is flat, the course uses all directions on a lap and the speeds are lower meaning the relationship between power and pace is far more consistent than it will ever by for a cyclist. It's not perfect of course, but more reliable than pace ever will be for a bike rider.

Really. Runners don't have to worry about aerodynamics. Try to run bent over and see how far you get. time-trial cycling is at least half aerodynamics, imo, so by concentrating on power alone (which is what most do) one is missing half of the problem. Therefore, repeated time trials under similar conditions is the one method, available to all who own a stop watch, that looks at both aspects and looks at overall potential/performance.

You are far more likely to make bad assumptions about cycling performance changes from pace data alone than you are from having pace and power data.

Really? What if you throw in PE, which is always available? Or, HR, which is almost universally available and certainly a lot less expensive? Have any data that adding power into the mix improves outcome?

IOW you agree with it.

No. Power does not calibrate PE.

You found it in your heart to think of one, maybe two advantages of having power data. And you accuse me of lacking curiosity!

Can you give me more advantages of having a power meter (beyond the ability of measuring aerodynamic drag, already mentioned, which "nobody" actually uses)? Indeed I do accuse you of a lack of curiosity, at least as it applies to this topic.

 

[sciguy]

Spoken like a fellow who has absolutely never raced a time trial with a power meter. Ones PE for the first quarter of an evenly powered 10K, 40k or 240K Time trial is just shouting "This is too easy!!!!!!!!!!" while at the back end it's shouting " the darn power meter has to be broken this is so hard.

Frank,

You need to get out and actually compete a bit. Do some time trials based on PE plus a power meter covered up but recording. After the race take a look at how well you paced the power. I guarantee you won't do remotely as well as you expect.......but then again you have no experience calibrating your PE with a reliable yard stick.

Hugh

 

[sciguy]

The "proverb" didn't say that "past performance" was the best predictor.

Some days I just can't decide it you're pretending not to understand or actually don't understand.

This weekend I raced my first 5K in almost 10 years. Afterwards I looked up past race performances some of the folks that also competed by using Athlinks. It's amazing how consistent their 5k times have been both over the course of years as well as over a variety of different courses. Gosh I think their past performances were great predictors or their performance on Sunday.


Hugh

 

[FrankDay]

Some days I just can't decide it you're pretending not to understand or actually don't understand.

This weekend I raced my first 5K in almost 10 years. Afterwards I looked up past race performances some of the folks that also competed by using Athlinks. It's amazing how consistent their 5k times have been both over the course of years as well as over a variety of different courses. Gosh I think their past performances were great predictors or their performance on Sunday.


Hugh

Then, by that metric, no one could ever improve. By that metric what is the need for any measuring device, power meter, speedometer, HRM, etc. Past performances are a great predictor for those with a large experience in a sport. Experienced runners can frequently predict their pace to within a second or two. It is an awful predictor for those relatively new to a sport or the injured.

Sometimes I wonder if you guys are just pretending to not understand or really don't understand.

 

[FrankDay]

Spoken like a fellow who has absolutely never raced a time trial with a power meter. Ones PE for the first quarter of an evenly powered 10K, 40k or 240K Time trial is just shouting "This is too easy!!!!!!!!!!" while at the back end it's shouting " the darn power meter has to be broken this is so hard.

Frank,

You need to get out and actually compete a bit. Do some time trials based on PE plus a power meter covered up but recording. After the race take a look at how well you paced the power. I guarantee you won't do remotely as well as you expect.......but then again you have no experience calibrating your PE with a reliable yard stick.

Hugh

Well, I guess that is the case for the inexperienced. As I said, I could see a PM helping the inexperienced pace a bit better. But, using one might hurt their ability to judge PE, which could hurt them later when they get really good. Here is what Sam Gyde just wrote in a little back and forth about that IM article he was mentioned in today.

"Actually, I don't care about IF, FTP and TSS at all. Interpreting numbers after a race is easy but during a race you can't go beyond your ability. I judge my ability based on experience from previous races and by comparing pre-race training in between several years. I knew I would bike better than in 2011. I had also hoped to run better but felt early in the race that that was not going to work and adjusted to a more conservative approach. Anyway, this is an interesting discussion. If I find time I could write at length about this.
As for relation between powercranks use and IF: hard to tell without knowing the actual FTP and IF. But for sure I use more muscles now than in the time before I trained on powercranks. My average power has increased with more than 10% due to increased strenght built by training on them."

And my response:

"I think where most people go wrong thinking about power meters is they think it is going to help them get better (that is what the article implies so why wouldn't they think that?). But, what really lets the athlete get better is what you describe, to learn how to better assess how they are feeling and how they are doing compared to their capabilities. The PM cannot help them with that. The PM is most useful to help us better compare what sets one athlete apart from others, so we can learn and develop better coaching techniques for those that follow. Power meters can be useful but their usefulness to the individual athlete is very limited. Stefanie Adam just showed the world that."