FrankDay said:
I really didn't respond to that comment because it is ludicrous. In what way am I not being candid or pretending to know less than I really do? Or, in other words, not being genuine.
A 13 year history of doing it.
Do you seriously believe that the average cyclist who has spent between $500 to $5000 for a power meter believes that the only thing that power meter is going to do for them is to measure the power improvements that they are getting from their training, improvements that would have occurred from their training whether they were measured or not?
Yes.
There are whole forums devoted to this device but when someone comes forward and asks for any evidence that it actually helps people to improve all that happens, rather than provide that evidence, all the "experts" do is to shout them down as being stupid (or call them a troll) for not being able to see how, obviously, useful the device is.
When you are disingenuous by trying to confuse something that measures power and something that may improve power like training, recovery, diet or equipment it is just trolling.
We can also use a power meter to show that things like Gimmickcranks, Crank Length and Pedalling Technique have no significant influence on power.
Probably most important we can pick up if a rider is overtraining. This is where I find the average user benefits most as I can show them when they are training too much.
That is what your experts who are "way more experienced than (me)" in this area do, if you will notice. Of course, since there is no evidence to present, it is important for them to defend it as they purchased one (or wrote a book about it) and don't want to think they wasted their money (or are wasting others money).
We can say the same of Gimmickcranks. When one wastes their time and money on a pair of those we can point to the numerous studies that show no improvement in power from a time frame of training when one sees power improvements in other studies using different training methods, recovery techniques or dietary practices.
With enough time they understands that X watts is what I can sustain for Y distance, usually.
On a dead flat time trial with little variation in the course. But what about track cycling, BMX, Downhill, Criteriums, Road Racing, XC, Enduro and Stage Racing?
Once they have that number do they suddenly ignore how they feel?
All of my riders ride and race by feel. We use the power meter to measure how well they do this.
No, most expert cyclists will use how they feel over their power meter number or HR. HR and power are, mostly, just a check on PE.
In a time trial the rider is able to control their pace. In the other events either competitors or course will dictate the pace a rider has to maintain. This is why we test with a power meter and use metrics like normalised power over average power. It's why we look at the variability index. It's why we look at the work a cyclist does over time to make sure they are making real progress.
If there is a big deviation one might worry and consider making a change of pace (either slower or faster).
Again only looking at power through the biased view of a triathlete. Cyclesport is so much more than that.
A PM might help the inexperienced pace somewhat better but the same argument can be made for a $100 HRM. Is there any evidence one is better at this than the other? NO!
Any cyclist will tell you even in a time trial their race day heart rate is higher then their training heart rate.
I did a series of 16km time trials and my average heart rate was 185-189. On the erg or in training if I attempted a 20min effort at that heart rate, even with easing into the zone, I was toast within minutes.
Then of course there is heart rate lag for short efforts and heart rate drift for long efforts.
Going back to Sam Gyde and his comment about ignoring this stuff and racing by feel. By doing this he raced at an IF of 0.9 and had the fastest bike split of the age-groupers and the 5th fastest bike split on the day.
A questionable IF which would suggest he didn't use the correct FTP for the day. But if he doesn't train with an SRM this is no surprise.
How would he have done had he chosen to watch his power and keep his IF at 0.8 or less, as is generally recommended for such a race?
Several people reporting high IF's at Kona! Just reflects that with a taper their FTP's are higher on the day and that they shouldn't base their race pace on training FTP's.
You all should be glad that Sam had a PM because what you can learn from him is this: The numbers are nothing but a guide and one can race extremely well ignoring them and racing by feel.
Well most of us had figured that out before we looked at his power.
It is too bad we don't have power numbers from Stefanie Adam. I wonder what we could learn from those? Oh, I know. The fact that she eschews a pm in both training and racing means one can totally ignore power numbers in both racing and training and also do extremely well..
Speculation. Got any evidence that is true? How do you know if she is reaching her performance potential? I see she was a DNF in the Texas Ironman. So her "feel" or training approach failed miserably there.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram