The Powermeter Thread

[CoachFergie]

It isn't a matter of reading or not reading. All I have asked for is the scientific validation of the concepts that shows a benefit to using one over other methods. Until that is shown we are talking about whether information can be better transmitted by FM or AM radio. One may be clearer but the information that can be transmitted is exactly the same. If a benefit can be shown then, perhaps, I will get on the PM bandwagon. Until then (at least as regards the 1st gen PM's) I will hold that the uses and benefits are quite limited to testing scenarios (comparing positions or components for aerodynamics and power changes for instance). Not that these benefits are not insubstantial, if used, but my sense is the average user ignores this use of the device.

Classic. Just choose to ignore the book that explains the scientific basis of many of the concepts. This thread is chocker with research papers providing the basis for using power as a measure.

Perhaps many, like you, don't bother to read the instructions before use. That is their problem not ours.

 

[sciguy]

Just out of curiosity, are you holding me to a higher standard of understanding the concepts of the training peaks software and terms than the training peaks representative who has done these analyses? I mean, if the TP representative doesn't understand this stuff or can't communicate it, what hope is there for the average person?

Oh come on Frank, you're a physician as well as nuclear engineer and promote a product that is supposed to improve power by 40% on the average. Of course I get to hold you to a higher standard.You've been promoting the product for years and have had ample time to educate yourself regarding measuring power and the metrics that are commonly used communicate about it. To be honest, I really don't care if everyone takes the time to educate themselves but you're obligated to do so if for no other reason than to be able to talk with your customers in an informed fashion.

You come off as just plain ignorant when asking what a mean maximal power curve is. A right click, Google search gives the answer in a very few seconds. For a fellow who regularly emphasizes how curious you are you don't seem very curious. I even take notes when investigating things you bring up.

Hugh

 

[CoachFergie]

Oh come on Frank, you're a physician as well as nuclear engineer

Was a Physician. When was he last certified/licensed?

 

[sciguy]

If you would go back and recheck my comment you will find it was not directed towards you. I directed that to CF who has subsequently confirmed he did not listen to the podcast. Why he "participates" in these discussions when he is unwilling to do anything to understand the point of view of anyone who might hold a view contrary to his own is beyond me.

As I remember my only potentially "snarky" comment towards you was simply that I didn't get that he had been tested multiple times for VO2max. Then I gave some subsequent information I had gained directly from Sam regarding this. If that was taken as being offensive I apologize.

You have my apology. I should know better than to reply to forums in the middle of the night when half asleep. Your comment was directed at Fergie but did actually contain misinformation as well.

I would like to know what you think Sam's use of Biestmilch as a performance aide. For me the consumption of dairy colostrum would seem best saved for calves..........but I honestly haven't looked at the research.

Hugh

 

[FrankDay]

Oh come on Frank, you're a physician as well as nuclear engineer and promote a product that is supposed to improve power by 40% on the average. Of course I get to hold you to a higher standard.You've been promoting the product for years and have had ample time to educate yourself regarding measuring power and the metrics that are commonly used communicate about it. To be honest, I really don't care if everyone takes the time to educate themselves but you're obligated to do so if for no other reason than to be able to talk with your customers in an informed fashion.

??? While power is one of the key components in making a bike go fast there is absolutely zero evidence that measuring that power in training or during a race makes a positive difference for the athlete. I am not obligated to learn the jargon or gobbledegook people use unless there is some evidence that doing so would really make a difference to me or to our customers. I enter these discussions to present my reservations regarding this tool in the hopes of someone making a real case for it. As such I continue to wait for the least scintilla of evidence. Especially when people continue to race extremely well without one. Again look at the case of Stefanie Adam, who doesn't use a power meter in training or racing yet had the fastest bike split at the Ironman World Championships by almost 5 minutes over everyone even though she is an amateur. So, the only real question is whether measuring power and using all these fancy metrics makes a positive difference for the athlete? Make that case. I will be patient.

Our claims of power improvement from using our product (as per our instructions) is simply a way of giving the potential customer what they might expect in performance improvement whether they measure power or not because how much power one develops actually is important. The claims are based upon our own in-house testing and many years of customer feedback. The problem is that such data doesn't constitute proof. The fact that we can not scientifically prove our claims is not evidence the claims are wrong. Despite Fergies feeble efforts to claim otherwise, there is zero evidence our claims are false. To help the potential customer with any concerns in this respect we offer a 90 day moneyback guarantee. About 2 in 1,000 take us up on that.

You come off as just plain ignorant when asking what a mean maximal power curve is. A right click, Google search gives the answer in a very few seconds. For a fellow who regularly emphasizes how curious you are you don't seem very curious. I even take notes when investigating things you bring up.

Hugh

Huh? When did I ask what a mean maximal power curve is? Are you posting again half asleep? Anyhow, when is it possible for someone to know everything? One of the reasons one might participate in a forum is to learn from others who know more about a subject than I do or to pick the brain of those with a difference experience. It is why I would participate in a power meter forum, to learn if there is really something to the device. So far I remain unenlightened.

I started riding when there was nothing but the clock to measure rides. Then, we got speedometers and odometers. Very exciting stuff until one figured out they really did nothing for you from a training perspective. Then, there was the HRM. Again very exciting until one figured out that one could pretty much predict their HR within a couple of beats by how they felt but it was useful, if things were way off, to suggest something was up like being dehydrated, sick, overtrained, etc. I even had an early power meter. Very exciting again until I learned the numbers never differed much from what I felt. Did knowing that number make a difference in training? I couldn't see it. I still don't see it. Show me some evidence that it does.

 

[FrankDay]

I would like to know what you think Sam's use of Biestmilch as a performance aide. For me the consumption of dairy colostrum would seem best saved for calves..........but I honestly haven't looked at the research.

Hugh

I have no basis to comment either positively or negatively about this product. I lot of very good people seem to like it. Nutrition is such a personal thing where one thing may work for one person and not for another that I say go for what works for you. If you have trouble with nutrition don't be afraid to try something else. If nutrition goes wrong one can be assured the race will go wrong.

 

[CoachFergie]

While power is one of the key components in making a bike go fast there is absolutely zero evidence that measuring that power in training or during a race makes a positive difference for the athlete.

Correct.

I am not obligated to learn the jargon or gobbledegook people use unless there is some evidence that doing so would really make a difference to me or to our customers.

Then why were you using terms like FTP, NP or IF when you clearly don't understand what they mean and show no inclination to learn.

I enter these discussions to present my reservations regarding this tool in the hopes of someone making a real case for it. As such I continue to wait for the least scintilla of evidence.

Yes no one has meet your Strawman challenge.

Again look at the case of Stefanie Adam, who doesn't use a power meter in training or racing yet had the fastest bike split at the Ironman World Championships by almost 5 minutes over everyone even though she is an amateur. So, the only real question is whether measuring power and using all these fancy metrics makes a positive difference for the athlete? Make that case. I will be patient.

Strawman.

Our claims of power improvement from using our product (as per our instructions) is simply a way of giving the potential customer what they might expect in performance improvement whether they measure power or not because how much power one develops actually is important.

Set that evidence bar low!

The claims are based upon our own in-house testing and many years of customer feedback. The problem is that such data doesn't constitute proof. The fact that we can not scientifically prove our claims is not evidence the claims are wrong.

Yes good thing there have been several studies that have done it for us.

Despite Fergies feeble efforts to claim otherwise, there is zero evidence our claims are false.

Again, I point to the very well performed studies in the peer review literature.

It is why I would participate in a power meter forum, to learn if there is really something to the device. So far I remain unenlightened.

So read RATWAPM and see the light! Sit in on Andy's Webinars!

I started riding when there was nothing but the clock to measure rides.

Ditto.

Then, we got speedometers and odometers. Very exciting stuff until one figured out they really did nothing for you from a training perspective.

Cough cough, Phil Holman 2-3 mph faster in an IP!!!

Then, there was the HRM. Again very exciting until one figured out that one could pretty much predict their HR within a couple of beats by how they felt but it was useful, if things were way off, to suggest something was up like being dehydrated, sick, overtrained, etc.

I actually threw mine away.

I even had an early power meter. Very exciting again until I learned the numbers never differed much from what I felt. Did knowing that number make a difference in training? I couldn't see it. I still don't see it. Show me some evidence that it does.

Strawman.

I ride my bike for fun and fitness. When I ride I enjoy the sun or the challenge of wind, rain or climbs. I don't need a power meter to do this. I don't need a power meter to race unless it's the type of event that requires no variance in pace.

The power meter lets me know if my fitness is improving, allows me to test equipment and to assess how well I have applied the preparation goals to the event on race day.

It's never pedalled the bike for me yet! Should have brought the next model Quarq up

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

I think you misunderstand what sort of variability in power affects VI.

And just to add to this, I don't tend to use the term Variability Index, but the named was coined early on and stuck.

I prefer simply the ratio of NP to AP.

While you can say that a high ratio does mean there was a lot of variability of power output, a lower ratio doesn't automatically imply a rider didn't vary their power.

Two examples:

A. Ride at X watts for 30-minutes then rides at 80% of X watts for the next 30-minutes

B. Ride alternately at X watts for 5-minutes, then 80% of X watts for 5-minutes and repeat for a hour total

A:
AP = 90.0% of X
NP = 91.6% of X
NP/AP (VI) = 1.018

B:
AP = 90.0% of X
NP = 91.5% of X
NP/AP (VI) = 1.017

So close enough to the same VI for both, and a VI that would be considered quite low, even though there is quite a variation in power output.


If the difference in power described in the above two examples is larger, e.g. X watts and 70% of X watts, then the ratio of NP to AP rises to 1.04.

In IM, a VI of 1.04 might be considered modest. But that's like riding alternately at hard tempo, then at recovery level 5-minutes a piece.


If the difference in power is X watts and 60% of X watts, then the ratio of NP to AP rises to 1.08. That's like doing a series of 5-min FTP efforts with 5-min recovery level in between.

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

talk about cranks elsewhere please

 

[acoggan]

With the release of WKO+ 4.0 I would expect a third edition is probably required

Things have changed/will be changing so much that I suggested to Hunter that we just start from scratch and write an entirely new book. Haven't convinced him yet, though...

 

[acoggan]

Was a Physician.

And never a certified engineer (nuclear or otherwise).

 

[FrankDay]

Was a Physician. When was he last certified/licensed?

And never a certified engineer (nuclear or otherwise).

Wow, do you guys ever actually try to provide anything positive to a discussion or is it all "debate by attempted character assassination"?

Anyhow, my relevant resume. I welcome you to post yours for comparison.

Graduate GW High School, major in having fun
Graduate US Naval Academy, BS in Applied Science
Graduate, US Navy Submarine School
Graduate, US Navy Nuclear Power School
4 years active duty on USS Seadragon (SSN-584), various duties
Qualified Engineering Officer of the Watch (nuclear)
Qualified in Submarines (nuclear)
Graduate, University of Hawaii John A. Burns School of Medicine
Fellow, American Board of Anesthesiology
Fellow, American Board of Pain Medicine
Certified, American Academy of Pain Management
Licensed in California and Texas (last practiced 1994)

Learned how to do marathon and to teach sedentary people how to run marathon as part of medical school curriculum. First marathon, Honolulu Marathon, in 1976.
Experienced Ultra-marathoner (longest "race" was 72 miles around Lake Tahoe)
Did first Iron Man Triathlon in Hawaii in 1978

 

[FrankDay]

Things have changed/will be changing so much that I suggested to Hunter that we just start from scratch and write an entirely new book. Haven't convinced him yet, though...

Ohhhh Noooooooo!!! Don't tell me that everything that people thought was true wasn't.

 

[elapid]

Wow, do you guys ever actually try to provide anything positive to a discussion or is it all "debate by attempted character assassination"?

Anyhow, my relevant resume. I welcome you to post yours for comparison.

Graduate GW High School, major in having fun
Graduate US Naval Academy, BS in Applied Science
Graduate, US Navy Submarine School
Graduate, US Navy Nuclear Power School
4 years active duty on USS Seadragon (SSN-584), various duties
Qualified Engineering Officer of the Watch (nuclear)
Qualified in Submarines (nuclear)
Graduate, University of Hawaii John A. Burns School of Medicine
Fellow, American Board of Anesthesiology
Fellow, American Board of Pain Medicine
Certified, American Academy of Pain Management
Licensed in California and Texas (last practiced 1994)

Learned how to do marathon and to teach sedentary people how to run marathon as part of medical school curriculum. First marathon, Honolulu Marathon, in 1976.
Experienced Ultra-marathoner (longest "race" was 72 miles around Lake Tahoe)
Did first Iron Man Triathlon in Hawaii in 1978

So, wait on ... you are not an engineer and while you are an MD and specialist anesthetist, you have not practised for nearly 20 years.

You talk about your first marathon and your first IM triathlon, both more than 30 years ago, but what about your last marathon and last IM triathlon?

Times have changed, Frank, and what you did and knew 20-30+ years ago does not necessarily apply now.

 

[CoachFergie]

So, wait on ... you are not an engineer and while you are an MD and specialist anesthetist, you have not practised for nearly 20 years.

You talk about your first marathon and your first IM triathlon, both more than 30 years ago, but what about your last marathon and last IM triathlon?

Times have changed, Frank, and what you did and know 20-30+ years ago does not necessarily apply now.

All starts to make sense doesn't it.

Andy, a new book sounds awesome! Looking forward to the webinars. The teasers posted on Facebook have been effective.

 

[FrankDay]

Times have changed, Frank, and what you did and knew 20-30+ years ago does not necessarily apply now.

While I do believe in evolution I really didn't understand that we evolve that fast or that what I know/knew is no longer true. I guess it is true that the way Newton understood the world is a tad antiquated based upon what we know now. That does not mean, however, that his view of the world has no applicability to today, does it?

So, while it may be true that what I knew 20-30 years ago "does not necessarily apply now" such an argument is not a particularly good evidence that it actually doesn't apply now. A little evidence please.

 

[elapid]

So, while it may be true that what I knew 20-30 years ago "does not necessarily apply now" such an argument is not a particularly good evidence that it actually doesn't apply now. A little evidence please.

The fact that Dr. Coggan believes that he and Dr. Hunter should write a third edition of their "Training and Racing with a Power Meter" because of the better understanding of power meters shows how rapidly our knowledge of exercise physiology and training is increasing and improving.

Since your days as an anesthetist, halothane is rarely used and isoflurane, sevoflurane and desflurane have become more common. Thiopentone is no longer used as an induction agent. Organ transplants are commonplace, which has occurred with an improved knowledge of immune system function and immunosuppression. Since you stopped practice, CT scans, MRIs, and PET-CTs have radically changed our ability to diagnose diseases and monitor their response to treatments. Our knowledge of exercise physiology, training techniques, etc has increased enormously since the mid-1970s. Jogging was still considered an absurdity in the mid-70s, let alone running marathons. Now everyone and their dog has or wants to run a marathon, and there are so many tools to help with training effectively for such goals. In fact, the doubling rate of information in the science world is 13 years. You first started running marathons in 1976 (37 years ago) retired as an anesthetist in 1994 (19 years ago), which means that in the science world alone, including exercise physiology and anesthesia, the amount of information has increased 8-times since you started running marathons and at least 3 times since you retired from medical practice.

Yet you still refuse to read "Training and Racing with a Power Meter" and still refuse to accept the views, with all of the current scientific knowledge, of world-renowned exercise physiologists on this forum. This shows me that you are still 20-30 years behind in your thinking, and your refusal to embrace the future shows me that you are unwilling to learn (and hence probably have largely ignored the exponential growth of information available in your fields since the mid-70s to the mid-90s).

 

[CoachFergie]

. A little evidence please.

Well he did say doesn't necessarily apply now.

Tomorrow we will see how riding and racing with a power meter has evolved since we started using a lot of the metrics developed by Andy in 2003. Not to say the old ones are bad or redundant, just that Andy has developed some new metrics and wishes to share.

 

[FrankDay]

The fact that Dr. Coggan believes that he and Dr. Hunter should write a third edition of their "Training and Racing with a Power Meter" because of the better understanding of power meters shows how rapidly our knowledge of exercise physiology and training is increasing and improving.

Didn't Dr. Coggan say something to the effect that so much had changed that he thought an entirely new book was in order, not a third edition?

Things have changed/will be changing so much that I suggested to Hunter that we just start from scratch and write an entirely new book.

Since your days as an anesthetist, halothane is rarely used and isoflurane, sevoflurane and desflurane have become more common. Thiopentone is no longer used as an induction agent. Organ transplants are commonplace, which has occurred with an improved knowledge of immune system function and immunosuppression. Since you stopped practice, CT scans, MRIs, and PET-CTs have radically changed our ability to diagnose diseases and monitor their response to treatments. Our knowledge of exercise physiology, training techniques, etc has increased enormously since the mid-1970s. Jogging was still considered an absurdity in the mid-70s, let alone running marathons. Now everyone and their dog has or wants to run a marathon, and there are so many tools to help with training effectively for such goals. In fact, the doubling rate of information in the science world is 13 years. You first started running marathons in 1976 (37 years ago) retired as an anesthetist in 1994 (19 years ago), which means that in the science world alone, including exercise physiology and anesthesia, the amount of information has increased 8-times since you started running marathons and at least 3 times since you retired from medical practice.

Hey, you misrepresent how old I really am, I have actually used penthrane. Anyhow, I understand you believe my knowledge of medicine/physiology to be on the order of that of Galen, Hippocrates, and the average orthopod (you know, air goes in and out, blood goes round and round, oxygen is good, muscles contract and relax, bones break and black bile is bad, very bad) but perhaps you could give me an example of something I have gotten wrong in this area. Just because I stopped practicing 19 years ago does not necessarily mean that I stopped thinking or caring about this stuff or that I forgot everything I knew. And, while I know that the amount of information available has increased in the interim I am more interested in knowing how much our understanding of the basic physiology has changed in the interim. Just how did those first organ transplants get done back in the dark ages when they didn't know anything, anyhow? LOL

Yet you still refuse to read "Training and Racing with a Power Meter" and still refuse to accept the views, with all of the current scientific knowledge, of world-renowned exercise physiologists on this forum. This shows me that you are still 20-30 years behind in your thinking, and your refusal to embrace the future shows me that you are unwilling to learn (and hence probably have largely ignored the exponential growth of information available in your fields since the mid-70s to the mid-90s).

Well, now I will wait for the new book because, apparently, everything is going to change anyhow. And, I might add, those so-called world renowned exercise physiology experts have shown me to have substantial deficits in some basic physiology concepts. They, like you, seem to think that anesthesiologists, especially old ones, couldn't possibly know as much as them since most of our experience is with patients who are not moving and the human body has evolved to something completely different in the last 20 years.

About every twenty years the younger generation seems to think they are a lot smarter than the previous generation and, as such, about every twenty years their is a housing bubble (or some sort of bubble) because of such hubris.

 

[elapid]

Just how did those first organ transplants get done back in the dark ages when they didn't know anything, anyhow? LOL

Organ transplants are the easy part. Understanding the immune system's reaction to organ transplants and techniques to avoid rejection are where tremendous advancements have been made. I'm sure you know this and are jus being obtuse.

About every twenty years the younger generation seems to think they are a lot smarter than the previous generation and, as such, about every twenty years their is a housing bubble (or some sort of bubble) because of such hubris.

Frank, I am not arguing that you have a poor grasp of the basics. Basic physiology has not changed a great deal. However, we have a lot greater depth to our knowledge and this is where you are obviously lacking. The new generation, no matter what the field, are usually on the forefront of their fields and breaking through the barriers. It is up to us older foggies to swallow our pride, be proud of their achievements, and learn rather than be stubborn ignoramuses.

 

[FrankDay]

Organ transplants are the easy part. Understanding the immune system's reaction to organ transplants and techniques to avoid rejection are where tremendous advancements have been made. I'm sure you know this and are jus being obtuse.

Huh? What does immune rejection of organ transplants have to do with exercise physiology, what we tend to discuss here? In medical school I used to be told that in 10 years half of what they were teaching us would be shown to be wrong, they just didn't know which half. Therefore, keep up with continuing education. Tell me where I have come up short (and provide some evidence) as regards these arguments.

Frank, I am not arguing that you have a poor grasp of the basics. Basic physiology has not changed a great deal. However, we have a lot greater depth to our knowledge and this is where you are obviously lacking.

Give me an example.

The new generation, no matter what the field, are usually on the forefront of their fields and breaking through the barriers. It is up to us older foggies to swallow our pride, be proud of their achievements, and learn rather than be stubborn ignoramuses.

Phooey. When they can show that their ideas really represent an advance rather than simply a different way of looking at things then I will pay attention. Just because one gets old is not evidence they suddenly become dumb. Show me the basis of this so-called advance. The evidence isn't in the race results. The evidence isn't in the science.

 

[elapid]

Huh? What does immune rejection of organ transplants have to do with exercise physiology, what we tend to discuss here?

Absolutely nothing and you know it. You brought up organ transplants having not changed. I replied saying what has changed with organ transplants, especially in relation to what has changed since you retired from medicine.

Tell me where I have come up short (and provide some evidence) as regards these arguments.Give me an example.Phooey.

Back on topic. An example: you being absolutely clueless about power and the science behind power. You trying to argue about power but yet you refuse to read "Training and Racing with a Power Meter" (akin to not taking part in continuing education). Yet you have the audacity to claim your cranks improve power by 40% but have no way of substantiating this claim because you do not measure power and you make no effort to understand power.

Just because one gets old is not evidence they suddenly become dumb.

No, very true. However, you are a fine example of the opposite because you have your crackpot theories, you do nothing to support or justify them, yet you continue to argue with people more knowledgeable than you whilst making no effort to stay abreast of the current literature. You are the walking and talking definition of an intellectual dinosaur.

 

[FrankDay]

Absolutely nothing and you know it. You brought up organ transplants having not changed. I replied saying what has changed with organ transplants, especially in relation to what has changed since you retired from medicine.

Ugh, I believe you were the one to first bring up organ transplants in this thread.

Since your days as an anesthetist, halothane is rarely used and isoflurane, sevoflurane and desflurane have become more common. Thiopentone is no longer used as an induction agent. Organ transplants are commonplace, which has occurred with an improved knowledge of immune system function and immunosuppression.

Back on topic. An example: you being absolutely clueless about power and the science behind power. You trying to argue about power but yet you refuse to read "Training and Racing with a Power Meter" (akin to not taking part in continuing education). Yet you have the audacity to claim your cranks improve power by 40% but have no way of substantiating this claim because you do not measure power and you make no effort to understand power.

What I am not clueless about is the fact that zero evidence exists to even suggest that all this so-called science of power monitoring makes a scintilla of difference to what the average athlete can accomplish. (I agree that it can be useful for specialized testing but I submit that this benefit is lost on 99+% of the users out there.) That is the issue. Sure it is possible to take any data and manipulate it all sorts of ways that make it easy for the OCD athlete to do something when they are not training. Lots of interesting stuff but does the mental masturbation make a whit of difference? Or, in other words, does it make a difference compared to alternative methods of measuring effort/pacing? That is what the science should be looking at. It is somewhat akin to evaluating different treatments in medicine. Comparing two treatments, one a simple dietary manipulation and another using a pill that costs $1,000. Both work. Unless the pill has an improved outcome though do you think the average insurance company will pay for that treatment? No, but plenty of people will still choose the pill route because it is "easier" or sexier or they have ben told it is better but that doesn't make it better. And, what if the outcome for the pill route was actually worse? Without a scientific look at the question one cannot know.

No, very true. However, you are a fine example of the opposite because you have your crackpot theories, you do nothing to support or justify them, yet you continue to argue with people more knowledgeable than you whilst making no effort to stay abreast of the current literature. You are the walking and talking definition of an intellectual dinosaur.

LOL. If you say so. One question, don't you find it a little strange that well under 1% of the participants at this years IM Kona probably have never even heard of my crackpot theories or product yet substantially more than that, who have actually used the product, either won their division or were on the podium there? (Including one who had the fastest bike split and doesn't use a power meter.) No probably doesn't bother you at all. Who is the intellectual dinosaur?

 

[CoachFergie]

What I am not clueless about is the fact that zero evidence exists to even suggest that all this so-called science of power monitoring makes a scintilla of difference to what the average athlete can accomplish. (I agree that it can be useful for specialized testing but I submit that this benefit is lost on 99+% of the users out there.)

Who is arguing with this?

Is there any measurement device that improves performance? In cycling, in triathlon, in anything. Does a set of scales improve the fat loss process?

Lots of interesting stuff but does the mental masturbation make a whit of difference? Or, in other words, does it make a difference compared to alternative methods of measuring effort/pacing?

Again no. Does the number on the speedometer influence how fast a driver will go into a corner? No. It will give the driver information to help them determine what gear and how hard they press on the accelerator.

That is what the science should be looking at. It is somewhat akin to evaluating different treatments in medicine.Comparing two treatments, one a simple dietary manipulation and another using a pill that costs $1,000. Both work.

So now we are ignoring decades of sports science research, I presume because your delusion is that only gimmickcrank can improve performance. Fortunately we have others with an open mind who look a wide range of training, recovery, dietary, mental, behavioural etc manipulations to the preparation process and they MEASURE to see if there is a difference.

 

[FrankDay]

Who is arguing with this?

Is there any measurement device that improves performance? In cycling, in triathlon, in anything. Does a set of scales improve the fat loss process?

Sure a measuring device can improve performance if it better motivates the athlete or provides a better measure of something important to concentrate on. The question here is not whether measuring effort can result in improvement but whether one measuring tool (pm) is better than another (PE, HRM, stopwatch).

Again no. Does the number on the speedometer influence how fast a driver will go into a corner? No. It will give the driver information to help them determine what gear and how hard they press on the accelerator.

It may not give you that information but it certainly does me, especially when I am given a heads up by a new speed limit for a corner by a road sign.

So now we are ignoring decades of sports science research, I presume because your delusion is that only gimmickcrank can improve performance. Fortunately we have others with an open mind who look a wide range of training, recovery, dietary, mental, behavioural etc manipulations to the preparation process and they MEASURE to see if there is a difference.

I would not be ignoring anything if anyone would simply show me where this decades of sports science research can be found. Show me that using a PM in the process makes a difference to the athlete. That is all I ask for. I understand the arguments as to why it should. Just show me some evidence that it does.

You guys would rather come here and call me old and stupid rather than simply show everyone the evidence.