W
Warren
Guest
In article <[email protected]>, Nick Burns
<[email protected]> wrote:
> warren wrote:
>
> > Has anyone here advocated ignoring power for cycling? No.
>
> Is this one of the strangest threads or what?
Emotional stakes, and some people aren't training now.
> > Merely stating that HR tells us useful information and so does power. We don't need to choose
> > only one or the other, except for the fact that HR can be measured for far less cost than power
> > and a person could estimate power based on speed, % grade or elevation change. I don't need a
> > powermeter to tell me I'm consistently faster at 170bpm than I used to be and testing shows that
> > 170bpm +/- 2 is my threshold. Therefore, I don't *need* a powermeter to know I'm going faster at
> > my threshold. The powermeter is nice to have though and provides greater accuracy.
> >
> > -WG
>
> There are really a lot of great things you can come up with if your budget is umlimited.
>
> Still, on a budget I think a Polar 720 and a nice indoor interactive trainer come before the power
> meter. I love the idea of using sets of short intervals on a indoor trainer that is able to
> precisely control load based on power.
No habla "indoor training", but I got the 710 because I wanted downloadable data including altitude
and decent software, and because I wasn't sure if I'd make the jump (financially) to power data
collection. Then it was a smaller jump when I added power.
> Throwing away HR data though, I mean why?
Among the "innovators" it's no longer as fashionable as the magic of power. All hail power.
And the real problem for most cyclists isn't whether or not they collect power information, it's
that they don't bother to learn about reasonable training methods. Point the crusade in that
direction for greater immpact.
-WG
<[email protected]> wrote:
> warren wrote:
>
> > Has anyone here advocated ignoring power for cycling? No.
>
> Is this one of the strangest threads or what?
Emotional stakes, and some people aren't training now.
> > Merely stating that HR tells us useful information and so does power. We don't need to choose
> > only one or the other, except for the fact that HR can be measured for far less cost than power
> > and a person could estimate power based on speed, % grade or elevation change. I don't need a
> > powermeter to tell me I'm consistently faster at 170bpm than I used to be and testing shows that
> > 170bpm +/- 2 is my threshold. Therefore, I don't *need* a powermeter to know I'm going faster at
> > my threshold. The powermeter is nice to have though and provides greater accuracy.
> >
> > -WG
>
> There are really a lot of great things you can come up with if your budget is umlimited.
>
> Still, on a budget I think a Polar 720 and a nice indoor interactive trainer come before the power
> meter. I love the idea of using sets of short intervals on a indoor trainer that is able to
> precisely control load based on power.
No habla "indoor training", but I got the 710 because I wanted downloadable data including altitude
and decent software, and because I wasn't sure if I'd make the jump (financially) to power data
collection. Then it was a smaller jump when I added power.
> Throwing away HR data though, I mean why?
Among the "innovators" it's no longer as fashionable as the magic of power. All hail power.
And the real problem for most cyclists isn't whether or not they collect power information, it's
that they don't bother to learn about reasonable training methods. Point the crusade in that
direction for greater immpact.
-WG