I would say you are the one making the assumption, regarding the basis of his efficiency.rmur17 said:ah you're assuming his efficiency has much (if anything) to do with his pedalling style vs. say ... his % of Type I fibers ...
I would say you are the one making the assumption, regarding the basis of his efficiency.rmur17 said:ah you're assuming his efficiency has much (if anything) to do with his pedalling style vs. say ... his % of Type I fibers ...
If you admit this then why are we even having this thread? How can expect to get better results training with an inferior instrument?Fday said:Well, the first two cannot measure improvement so the only choice is C [PM] from those you listed.
The best improvent measure I can think of regarding an athletes performance is the actual performance itself.Bruce Diesel said:Okay, then let me rephrase.
When assessing the improvement that power-cranks have made to an athletes performance, which measuring tool would yeild the best results?
Because the ones you listed are not the only metrics that can be used to track progress. Many others exist.Steve_B said:If you admit this then why are we even having this thread? How can expect to get better results training with an inferior instrument?
Excellent. I was hoping you'd eventually see the light.swampy1970 said:Efficiency is not [particularly] important... Hmmmm. Whatever you say....
But you just wrote a little while ago that only a PM can show improvement. Why would you use a metric that doesn't work to track your progress?Fday said:Because the ones you listed are not the only metrics that can be used to track progress. Many others exist.
We all agree that power is directly related to the speed at which a bicycle is propelled.Fday said:The best improvent measure I can think of regarding an athletes performance is the actual performance itself.
Measuring power would be an easy way to track progress but I am not sure it is better than any other method. That was the reason for the original question here. Is there any evidence, beyond anecdotal, that power is a better metric to follow than other metrics?
I think it will be interesting to see how many times Frank has contradicted himself in the thread.Felt_Rider said:
Fday said:The best improvent measure I can think of regarding an athletes performance is the actual performance itself.
There is only one problem with measuring power alone as your performance metric. Power is not the only important variable in deterining how fast one goes on a bicycle. It is easy to gain more power if one sits up on the bike (like when climbing) but this could slow you down because of the aerodyamics. And, by the same token a rider can become faster by improving aerodynamics without increasing power at all (or, even, at a lower power).Bruce Diesel said:We all agree that power is directly related to the speed at which a bicycle is propelled.
Well, at the end of the day, all the other metrics are measuring power indirectly e.g. measuring speed up a climb, or time taken on a pre-defined course, lower HR at the same intensity (which would be defined in power terms anyway), etc. So, there is nothing anecdotal about the fact that measuring the performance metric directly is both better and easier than measuring other variables and deducing improvements in the metric that counts. Indirect measurement introduces error because the variables that influence the results are difficult to measure accurately if at all.
This is a fact, I cannot see how the term anecdotal is even applicable here.
An example:
After an athlete has trained in a certain way (be it with power cranks, wattage specific intervals, whatever). And tests his performance in two ways:
1. Time to complete a climb has improved by x%.
2. Power output over a certain duration has improved by y%.
Now, do you seriously question which of these to metrics is a better measurement? If you do, then with all due respect I have to have serious doubts about any statements you make regarding any aspect of cycling performance.
TheDarkLord said:I think it will be interesting to see how many times Frank has contradicted himself in the thread.
Steve noticed as wellSteve_B said:But you just wrote a little while ago that only a PM can show improvement. Why would you use a metric that doesn't work to track your progress?
swampy1970 said:So how does the explain how someone like Olano, who reportedly has a very low VO2max in comparison with his peers but apparently has a very efficient pedaling style, could time trial better than pretty much better than anyone.
Lucia, A., J. Hoyos, M. Perez, A. Santalla, and J.L. Chicharro. Inverse relationship between VO2max and economy/efficiency in world-class cyclists. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 34: 2079-2084, 2002.
AHHHHH! Frank, you started this thread about power, not speed. We all know that speed is dependant upon many things, not just power. Stop moving the goalposts, like seem to want to do.Fday said:There is only one problem with measuring power alone as your performance metric. Power is not the only important variable in deterining how fast one goes on a bicycle. It is easy to gain more power if one sits up on the bike (like when climbing) but this could slow you down because of the aerodyamics. And, by the same token a rider can become faster by improving aerodynamics without increasing power at all (or, even, at a lower power).
So I repeat my question of just a little while ago. You said that only a power meter can show a rider's improvement. So why would you train and measure your improvement with an instrument or method that does not work?Fday said:The original question was not whether or not power was a good tool. The question was whether there was any evidence, other than anecdotal, that it was a better tool than others that existed before it in helping athletes to perform better.
To which tools are you referring?Fday said:The original question was not whether or not power was a good tool. The question was whether there was any evidence, other than anecdotal, that it was a better tool than others that existed before it in helping athletes to perform better.
This is how he wiggles out of it: He'll wait until someone else posts something to which he can reply to and either change the subject or blow it off completely. Except I'm not letting this go....Felt_Rider said:Steve noticed as well
How many contradicting times?
It may go up as quickly as my post count.
Fday said:How did people know they were better before PM's were available?
Sounds good. I'm on my way to the airport now...Alex Simmons said:it's another glorious morning here in Sydney.
Ugh, I son't know of a sinngle cyling race that gives the trophy to the rider who can generate the most power. Usually it goes to the fastest. Going fast involves a lot of skills. Power is just one metric one can work on to achieve that fastest goal.Steve_B said:AHHHHH! Frank, you started this thread about power, not speed. We all know that speed is dependant upon many things, not just power. Stop moving the goalposts, like seem to want to do.
So I repeat my question of just a little while ago. You said that only a power meter can show a rider's improvement. So why would you train and measure your improvement with an instrument or method that does not work?
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.