FrankDay said:
I accept that you beieve that having this information offers you an advantage.
A measurement advantage, not a performance advantage of course. I appreciate that some people believe a power meter will make them go faster but does a former Doctor and Engineer believe that?
Can you quantitate that advantage over not having that information compared to how "equivalent" training is done by those without power meters?
Again, why measure anything. People have been testing their performce since the 19th century. We just have better tests. We had a lecture from Dr Ed Coyle who said in the 70s they just fed cyclists CHO and they tested better, these days the tests are far better and you can see exactly how the glucose is transported into the cell but this hasn't changed the recommendations of CHO intake since the 70s.
Further, do you seriously believe you would not be able to tell if you were improving or not if you didn't have power data?
Yes seriously. Power meters been bursting bubbles for the last 20 years!
How did cyclists evaluate improvement in the days before PM's?
Badly.
How much better are cyclists today, who train with all that power meter data, than those in days of old than those of the olden days before PMs, like Merckx, Hinault, etc.
Merckx was tested after he broke the hour record. 450 watts for 60min in a Uni in Belgium.
Several World Records broken in London Olympics so better than previous.
I am glad you have those numbers. It simply isn't clear to me that having those numbers makes a difference.
Like any test. They confirm if the process used (training, recovery, nutrition etc) actually led to an improvement in cycling specific fitness.
Don't you find it a little strange the the fellow who wrote the book is unable to design a study to measure whether there is an advantage and, if there is an advantage, the size of the advantage?
All the Swart and Robinson papers confirmed was that training works and it doesn't matter if you look at a HR monitor or a PM (and I suspect The Simpson or Family Guy). Andy has moved on from doing training or performance studies but there is quite a bit of evidence out there from other good people showing that training does indeed make you better. To determine what training is most effective would require some type of comparison and a measure if cycling specific fitness had improved.
Hmmmmm, what could you use?
of course, their improvements were measured in power as the researchers need numbers to conduct the statistical analysis.
Ah so you admit there is no better metric to have measured the changes in fitness with. Knew you would catch up at some point.
But, the group that had no knowledge of their power when training improved just as well.
We have in fact known that training actually works for some time. Thanks to Jeroen for adding to the rather huge pile of papers confirming that
You guys seem to think that people who know power meter data are somehow better capable of pushing themselves or make better decisions. That has never been shown.
Yes of course, I feel a better citizen for having my power meter.
All of you folks believe that your tool helps you. I can understand why one might believe there would be an advantage to this informatin in view of all the hype that surrounds the device.
Only hype is coming from you Frank.
But, if there is an advantage, it has never been shown and, if there is an advantage, no one knows how large it is. Further, as I said above, the fellow who wrote the book most of you follow can't even tell us how he would design a study to demonstrate an advantage let alone quantitate it.
Yes bad Andy, why won't you design Frank his Strawman study (sorry Elapid, going to have to agree to disagree on that one).