What is the evidence that training with power is superior to . . .

Originally Posted by Felt_Rider

Steve noticed as well

How many contradicting times?
It may go up as quickly as my post count.

Originally Posted by Fday

How did people know they were better before PM's were available?

Originally Posted by Alex Simmons

it's another glorious morning here in Sydney.

Originally Posted by Steve_B

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?

Originally Posted by Fday

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.

Why would you presume that looking at that single metric would be the best measure of how one will perform overall? Obviously, you believe so, which gets me back to the original question. Is there any evidence to support your proposition that measuring this one metric is superior to other methods of measuring achievement when preparing for a bike race?

Originally Posted by beerco

They didn't know, they guessed.

Originally Posted by Fday

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.

Why would you presume that looking at that single metric would be the best measure of how one will perform overall? Obviously, you believe so, which gets me back to the original question. Is there any evidence to support your proposition that measuring this one metric is superior to other methods of measuring achievement when preparing for a bike race?

Originally Posted by Bruce Diesel

So, please, could you list the other methods of measuring an athletes preparation that you are referring to?

Originally Posted by waterrockets

Third race after starting to train with power, sprinting for the win from a 5-man break (Ronde von Manda)

Originally Posted by acoggan

Congratulations!

Originally Posted by Bruce Diesel

Still waiting for you to tell me what the other methods are that you are referring to. We've already written off HR and RPE, so all that is left is the stopwatch.

Power is the physical quantity that propels the bike forward, the only one. All other quantities to which you could possibly be referring, such as aerodynamics, weight, efficiency etc are working against propelling a bike forwards. However, the effect of all of these quantities can be completely and accurately measured with a power meter, since a power meter does not only measure power, it measures speed and time as well. So, the optimisation of these other quantities are measureable using a power meter - the nett effect of all of these variables are measurable with a power meter, no other tool is capable of this.

What other methods can possibly be used when preparing for a bike race, i.e. not racing, preparing (your words not mine). I don't think you'll find a single proponent of power meter usage saying that power numbers guarantee the win in a race. We all know that tactics, timing, luck play a role, but we are talking about preparing for a bike race, so saying bike race results are the best measuring tool for preparing for a bike race is illogical.

So, please, could you list the other methods of measuring an athletes preparation that you are referring to?

Originally Posted by Fday

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.

Why would you presume that looking at that single metric would be the best measure of how one will perform overall? Obviously, you believe so, which gets me back to the original question. Is there any evidence to support your proposition that measuring this one metric is superior to other methods of measuring achievement when preparing for a bike race?